Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANNEL TUNNEL

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if, in view of the desirability of demonstrating the solidarity of the peoples of France and Great Britain in peace and in war, he will withdraw the objections which successive British Governments have raised to the construction of a tunnel under the Channel.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): While there are so many useful and necessary transport projects in this country which have more pressing claims on the limited resources available, I am afraid the Channel Tunnel will have to wait.

Mr. Mallalieu: While appreciating the reasons which have led the right hon. Gentleman to give that answer, may I ask whether he appreciates that he has not attempted to answer my Question, which was whether the old objections, and not the present-day objections had been withdrawn by the Minister? Does he realise that the cost of the tunnel would be negligible and that at least six Continental Governments would wish to contribute to this scheme? Can the right hon. Gentleman think of any scheme which would better or more cheaply demonstrate our desire to stand in with France, and is not this a particularly suitable year to make a demonstration in that direction having regard to the fact that this is the 50th year of the Entente Cordiale?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: While desiring in every way that we should show our affection for the people of Europe, I could not say that the old objections have been

all removed, while in addition there are new disadvantages, in that the development of air travel has strengthened the arguments against a tunnel which have, by themselves, prevailed with every Government for the last 50 years.

Mr. P. Williams: In view of the vital importance of maintaining good relations between Northumberland and Durham, will my right hon. Friend press on with the scheme to complete the Tyne tunnel?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Helicopters

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what action he proposes to take to ensure that helicopter development and route flying experience is obtained in Scotland without undue delay to enable full use to be made of this form of transportation as soon as possible after the experimental period is over.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): In view of the present relatively high cost of helicopter operations, the experimental programme cannot be extended without incurring unjustifiable expense to the taxpayer.

Mr. Dodds: Is not the Minister aware that in Scotland there is great interest in helicopters? In order to stimulate development, which is always costly, would he not try a few experimental flights between Edinburgh or Glasgow and the more inaccessible parts, like the Western Isles, because many American tourists would pay a lot of money to go on one or two of them?

Mr. Profumo: I am aware of the very widespread interest in helicopters all over the British Isles, but the problems of helicopter flying in particular areas, once the basic problems have been resolved, will probably be overcome in the course of operation and will not of themselves require a separate experimental programme?

Air Terminal, Glasgow

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the cost of the Glasgow air terminal.

Mr. Profumo: The air terminal in Glasgow was provided by B.E.A. at its own expense.

Mr. Thomson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that while the air terminal provides very attractive new facilities for air travel in Scotland, it completely fails, despite the considerable sum of money expended on it, to provide left-luggage facilities? Will the Minister draw the attention of the B.E.A. to this omission?

Mr. Profumo: I am informed that there are facilities for leaving luggage at this terminal. This is not as widely known as it might be. I am sure that the B.E.A. would be glad to consider any suggestion that the hon. Member might like to put to them in this matter.

Internal Air Services (Speke and Hawarden)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what safety considerations preclude the inauguration of a Viscount or Pionair passenger air service between London and the North-West, notably Liverpool, Merseyside, Wrexham and North Wales areas; and to what extent Speke and Hawarden Airports are safe for such facilities.

Mr. Profumo: The answer to the first part of the Question is "None, Sir." Speke is safe for Pionairs, but its runways would need strengthening for regular use by Viscounts, while Hawarden, although safe for Pionairs, is unsuitable for Viscounts.

Mr. Nabarro: Can my hon. Friend say, since he has now exhausted every possible excuse for not having an air service to the North-West, what initiative he is prepared to take to bring together all the interested parties with a view to ending the discrimination that exists in this part of the country, in view of the fact that it is the only important industrial area in England which has no form of air service at all?

Mr. Profumo: I know that my hon. Friend appreciates that this is not entirely a matter for my right hon. Friend who has no power to order B.E.A. to run a route which, in its commercial judgment, would not be profitable. However, I feel sure that the Chairman of B.E.A. would be prepared to receive the deputation of interested hon. Members and to discuss the subject with them.

Mr. C. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that aircraft on the London-Belfast air service pass directly over North Wales, and particularly over the airport at Hawarden? Could not arrangements be made for certain of these aircraft to stop at Hawarden?

Mr. Profumo: I do not imagine that that would make the operation any more profitable.

Mr. Page: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what objections he has raised to the use of Speke Airport, Liverpool, for scheduled passenger air services between that airport and London.

Mr. Profumo: None, Sir.

Mr. Page: Having regard to my hon. Friend's answer to previous Questions on this subject, will he really ask his right hon. Friend to give sympathetic consideration to the considerable demand for an air service between London and Liverpool?

Mr. Profumo: I do not think that I can add to what I have already suggested, which is that hon. Friends who are particularly interested might go and see Lord Douglas on this very important matter.

Mr. Nabarro: Let him come and see us.

Mr. Page: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what representations he has received concerning helicopter landing sites, in the centre or docks of Liverpool, for a feeder-service in the event of Speke Airport being used for a scheduled London—Liverpool air service.

Mr. Profumo: The hon. Member has himself drawn my attention to the possibility of developing vacant land in the Liverpool Docks area for use by helicopters. The Liverpool Corporation has also consulted my Department on a proposal for a combined bus station and helicopter site in the central area of the city.

Mr. Page: May I ask my hon. Friend what his right hon. Friend's views are in regard to these representations—whether he is encouraging as regards them or not?

Mr. Profumo: As I informed the hon. Member, we feel that it is much too


early to come to any definite conclusion as to the size of helicopter landing sites. We also feel that we should warn local authorities that it may be too early for them to go into very considerable expenditure. At the same time we are passing on to interested local authorities any information we glean to try to help them in this important matter.

Helicopter Services

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what discussions he has had, and with what results, in regard to the inauguration of experimental helicopter services between Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester with a branch link to London; what objections on grounds of noise he has considered from persons or bodies in these cities or others and whether he will now make a statement upon proposed experimental fare-paying helicopter passenger services between any or all of the cities named.

Mr. Profumo: My right hon. Friend has no proposals for increasing the number of experimental helicopter services undertaken at public expense beyond the one allotted to the Helicopter Experimental Unit of British European Airways. Consequently, he has had no discussions on the experimental network to which the Question refers. Nor has he received any objections on the grounds of noise.

Mr. Nabarro: Reverting to the question of Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester, is this not the most fruitful area of the country for experiments in helicopter services, notably in view of the rather unsatisfactory train service and the much too great a length of time it takes to get from Birmingham or Liverpool or Manchester by rail?

Mr. Profumo: We think that the experiments which are going to be carried out between the centre of London and London Airport will give us the basic information now required in order to speed up the development of helicopters, and we believe that the cost of additional helicopter experimental services would be extremely high and out of all proportion to any value they might have in supplementing the national development programme now being undertaken.

Mr. A. Henderson: Will the Minister bear in mind that, whatever arguments

may be adduced in favour of a helicopter service, those of us who have to use the railway service between London and Birmingham find it extremely satisfactory?

Greatham Aerodrome

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when the deputation from Tees-side organisations, which met him on 1st June last in connection with Greatham Aerodrome, can expect a reply to their representations.

Mr. Marquand: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what reply he has made to the letter sent to him on 15th July by the secretary of the Tees-side Industrial Development Board concerning the suspension of overseas air services from Greatham Aerodrome.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have been fully into the representations made to me on 1st June, and I regret to say that the Government must now reaffirm that they cannot see their way to altering their decision that Customs facilities at Greatham Aerodrome cannot be renewed. We have only just reached this conclusion, after giving every consideration to the weighty arguments advanced by the important delegation that came to see me, and I am replying in these terms to the letter from the Tees-side Development Board.

Mr. Jones: Does the Minister realise that that reply will cause dismay and despondency on both sides of the Tees? Already a number of services have been withdrawn completely, and the proposal that Greatham Aerodrome will now have to close down completely means that there will be no facilities for air services from this very heavily industrialised part of the country.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Government have felt obliged to reaffirm the view that Customs facilities can be provided only where the traffic is sufficient to justify the full-time occupation of Customs officers, or where there is no other Customs airport in the area. Although I recognise the great importance of Teesside in the aviation field, I am afraid that this aerodrome does not qualify.

Mr. Marquand: Is the right hon. Gentleman now announcing a new


Government policy—that the question of whether or not there are to be overseas services from an important industrial area is to be determined by the convenience of the Board of Customs and Excise and not by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there have been Customs facilities for some experimental years. Had the traffic offering been such as to justify the full-time employment of Customs officers a very different decision would have been arrived at. The traffic offering has not justified it, and in view of the need for strict scrutiny of all public expenditure the Government have arrived at this conclusion.

Mr. Marquand: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this decision will limit the possibilities of civil aviation on Tees-side very severely indeed, and has he not a special responsibility to see that it is maintained and expanded?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have nothing to add to the answer which I have given.

Mr. Rees-Davies: My right hon. Friend will know that I am deeply interested in this question as it affects the Ramsgate Airport at Thanet. Could he not stretch that test slightly further and say that it will not only be whether the Customs is sufficient but whether there is a reasonable expectation of such Customs being sufficient, and that if one can say that one can succeed in getting the necessary Customs facilities? I thought that was the position.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is, in fact, the principle which has been applied in this particular case.

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will make a statement about the future use of Greatham Aerodrome.

Mr. Profumo: The future use of the aerodrome at Greatham can only be decided by the county borough of West Hartlepool, to whom it belongs.

Mr. Chetwynd: Has not the action taken by the Ministry and the Treasury already struck a fatal blow to the use of this aerodrome, and is not this another case where the needs of his Department have been subordinated to the

needs of the Treasury, and should not the Parliamentary Secretary resign in protest?

Mr. Profumo: No, Sir. In this, as in all other decisions, Her Majesty's present Government are at one.

Mr. D. Jones: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that the experiment conducted at Greatham Aerodrome in relation to the provision of Customs facilities over the last two years has not cost the Treasury a single penny because it has been paid for by the operators?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Pedestrian Crossings

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what additional facilities he has advised local authorities to provide for the safety of old people and children crossing the roads.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): Local authorities are encouraged to appoint school crossing patrols at suitable places; motorists should show particular care when they see old people about to cross the road, whether at zebra crossings or not.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that his recent admission that the Ministry had never considered zebra crossings particularly suitable for young people and children dealt a further damaging blow at public confidence in these devices? Will he say what a child going to school and an old person should do when they want to cross the road at a place officially described as not being particularly suitable for the purpose?

Mr. Molson: I find it a little difficult to understand the motive of the hon. and gallant Gentleman in carrying on this campaign against zebra crossings. I was at pains to say in that speech that zebra crossings are not entirely safe. I meant to emphasise that because a certain road sense is necessary in using zebra crossings they could not be relied upon as being entirely safe for old people and young children who are sometimes lacking in road sense. That is all I meant.

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether his new regulations for zebra


crossings require the alteration of established tram stops as well as of omnibus stops.

Mr. Molson: Yes, Sir, if a stop is between a crossing and the pattern of studs on the approach side. Sometimes it might be simpler to move the zebra.

Manor Road, West Ham

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he has completed his investigations into the road dangers at Manor Road, West Ham. E.15; what was the nature of these investigations; what was the result; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Molson: As a result of our investigations, we have asked the West Ham Borough Council to provide guardrails and to erect warning signs at the approaches to the double bend in Manor Road. We are also asking the Commissioner of Police to give special attention to this area.

Mr. Lewis: While thanking the Minister most sincerely for that reply, and while appreciating that this will be a big help, may I point out to him that this is a veritable death trap and make the suggestion that he should consider introducing a system of traffic control either way under the bridge? Were that to be done, and were traffic lights to be installed on either side of the bridge, it would have the effect of slowing down and stopping traffic, thus doing away with some of the dangers.

Mr. Molson: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the kind things he has said, and I will certainly look carefully into the further suggestion he has made

North Wales

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give details of the length of unclassified roads which have been classified in the six North Wales counties in each of the last three financial years.

Mr. Molson: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hughes: As the percentage of classified roads in Wales is higher than in any other part of the country, cannot

the Minister see his way to relax the regulations so that in future a greater number of roads can be classified?

Mr. Molson: I am afraid that I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman's supplementary. It is the case that in the six North Wales counties to which the hon. Gentleman refers, 54 per cent. of all the roads are trunk or classified roads compared with only 50·4 per cent. in England. That tends to show that we are already taking into account the special needs of North Wales.

Following is the answer:

The following lengths of unclassified road were accepted for classification during the financial years indicated and formally classified on the 1st April following:


County
1951–52
1952–53
1953–54



Miles
Miles
Miles


Anglesey
5·65
0·56
Nil


Denbighshire
3·48
0·38
Nil


Flintshire
1·17
Nil
Nil


Montgomery
Nil
19·11
Nil


Totals
10·3
20·05
Nil

The above mileage was classified as Class III (except 0·61 mile which was raised to Class II).

The mileages classified in Class III were partly in substitution for the following mileages of Class III roads which were declassified:


Denbighshire
3·69 miles declassified at the end of 1951–52.


Montogomery
19·11 miles declassified at the end of 1952–53.

No roads in Caernarvonshire or Merionethshire were either classified or declassified during the period.

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what criteria of traffic value and what other factors he takes into consideration when deciding whether a road should be brought into a classified category.

Mr. Molson: The decision whether and how a road should be classified depends on its importance as a through traffic route.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that his Department recently agreed to classify a short distance of road in my division on condition that a similar distance in the same county was de-classified? Is that the policy of his Department?

Mr. Molson: In both cases, the decision was justified because it was found that the length of road which was


classified had a greater value to through traffic than the road which was declassified.

Mr. Callaghan: Can the Minister say how many through roads there are in the Isle of Anglesey?

Mr. Molson: The mileage is extremely limited, for obvious geographical reasons.

Traffic Congestion, London (Parades and Processions)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will appoint a committee to inquire into the dislocation of London traffic caused by parades and processions of an official character, and to make recommendations to reduce inconvenience to the general public.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think this could usefully be studied by a committee; I am assured by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department that the police do everything possible to ensure that diversions of traffic arising out of parades and processions are kept to a minimum.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it not ridiculous that so many big parades should take place on busy week days, and at the busiest times of the day? Why could not the big police review of last week have been held on Saturday afternoon? That would have avoided the necessity of messing up the traffic all round Hyde Park for five hours.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think it is generally agreed that most of these great occasions bring welcome colour into people's lives, and that many of them provide opportunities for showing pride and loyalty and are deeply valued by millions of people.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Cannot this be done on Saturday afternoon?

Improvements and New Constructions

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) the authorised expenditure for new road works in each region under his control for the current financial year;
(2) the authorised expenditure for new road works in each county in Wales for the current financial year.

Mr. Molson: My right hon. Friend does not authorise expenditure on new road works for particular financial years; his authorisations are for the Road Fund share of the total cost of schemes, some of which will be spread over several years. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table, which at this stage can only be very provisional, showing the possible distribution between the highway divisions this year of Road Fund commitments for works of major improvement and new construction. We cannot yet estimate the distribution of commitments by counties.

Following is the table:


Division
Approximate estimate of Road Fund commitments for major improvements and new construction to be authorised in 1954–55



£ million


Metropolitan
4·3


South Eastern
1·0


South Western
1·1


Midland
1·0


Wales and Monmouth
1·3


North Western
0·9


Scotland
5·1


North Eastern
1·1


North Midland
1·2


Eastern
0·6

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS (AUTOMATIC TRAIN CONTROL)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has been made by the nationalised railways since the Harrow train disaster nearly two years ago in the installation of appropriate track, signalling and locomotive equipment of new improved design, in addition to the experimental stretch between London and Huntingdon, for automatic train control in regions other than Western Region, which is already fully equipped and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The working of the British Railways automatic train control apparatus now under trial has shown an appreciable improvement during recent months. Though the very high standard of reliability which is necessary in safety equipment of this kind has not yet been


attained, the British Transport Commission are proposing to extend the trial stretch for a considerable additional mileage.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that the recent White Paper on the railways reorganisation scheme made no reference to the matter of safety on the railways and to the introduction of a comprehensive and standardised form of automatic train control and signalling? Will my right hon. Friend have regard to this very important matter when the subject is debated?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. Of course, the White Paper, quite properly, did not go into detail about important matters of this kind. It was concerned with the structure of the railway system. The British Transport Commission has made its position perfectly plain, and the Government is supporting it in the view that a widespread extension of automatic train control is highly desirable, but the introduction of a system not wholly reliable would increase and not decrease the danger.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Can the Minister say whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making a special allocation of money in order to encourage the British Transport Commission to go on with this scheme with greater expedition than is now possible?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The British Transport Commission has the requisite powers, but, quite rightly, it is proceeding by trial and error in this vital field where over-hasty improvisation may lead to disastrous results.

Mr. J. Harrison: Would not the Minister agree that railway traffic in this country today is one of the safest forms of travel we have got, and that, therefore, any apprehension regarding any danger that exists must be considered in relation to the danger that exists elsewhere?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Goods Vehicles, Central London (Representations)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what protests he has received on the proposed restriction of loading and unloading goods vehicles in Central London.

Mr. Molson: My right hon. Friend has received representations from the Westminster Chamber of Commerce, the National Road Transport Federation and the National Association of Furniture Warehousemen and Removers.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: What is the Minister doing about these recommendations? Is he not aware that these new proposed regulations are the fourth lot in 18 months, and does he now propose, for the first time, to deny to traders the principle to have reasonable access to their premises? Would it not be far better to concentrate on the problem created by the parking of private cars in unilateral streets? If he did that, and if he provided parking meters, he would do more good.

Mr. Molson: These proposals, which are likely to be put into force in the autumn, are the result of recommendations from the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. They have been discussed with the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and with the Commissioner of Police for the City of London, both of whom are in favour of trying these new methods of restriction for an experimental period.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: How long?

Mr. Molson: For a period of six months, with a review after three months. It really does not follow that because the hon. and gallant Gentleman disagrees with all the experts on traffic problems, they are necessarily wrong.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. Friend aware that the main problem in regard to London traffic is one of flow, that a lorry takes up just as much room as, or more room than a private car, and that many people in this House and in the country will welcome any experiment—this and others?

Commercial Vehicles, Coventry

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware of local fears that the position of commercial transport is being jeopardised in Coventry by the basing of British Road Services vehicles outside their former district; how many of the 29 already sold under the disposal scheme will be based outside Coventry, and at what distance from their former


district; and what arrangements are proposed to avoid disturbance of the commercial transport system in the area.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have received no representations that road transport in Coventry has suffered from the sale of British Road Services vehicles. I am afraid I cannot undertake to give particulars of the location of every vehicle after disposal, but I have full confidence in the licensing authority to discharge their responsibilities in dealing with licence applications involving change of base. I am also satisfied that the British Transport Commission is effectively carrying on its road haulage services so that there shall be no avoidable disturbance of the transport system during the disposal period.

Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that in that very lengthy answer he has not dealt at all with the point I raised? Is it not possible for him to say how many of these vehicles are to be based outside the area of Coventry? Is it not further true that in the British Road Services area of Coventry Leamington is included and the figure of 29 vehicles should be 50?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I said, it would be clearly quite impossible for me or any Minister to undertake to give the exact location of every vehicle disposed off. I am satisfied that the licensing authority recognise their responsibility under the relevant Section of the Act—Section 9, I believe—and can be relied upon to see that it is carried out.

Abnormal Loads

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware of the increasing number of abnormally bulky and slow-moving loads, such as ships' propellors, railway carriages and industrial plants which are transported by road, causing congestion and delay to other road users; and if he will consult with industry with a view to discouraging this traffic until the road system can be made adequate to carry it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The number of abnormal indivisible loads has increased since the war. I regret the inconvenience which they can cause, but such traffic is usually of high national importance. The whole procedure for carrying heavy loads by road is now under review, and

I am proposing to bring representatives of industry into consultation.

Mr. Russell: While appreciating what my right hon. Friend has said about this traffic being of national importance, may I ask whether it would not be possible for some of this traffic to go by sea, as it presumably did in the days before heavy road vehicles were used for this purpose?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. I know that manufacturers are conscious of that fact. I am always ready to draw their attention to that means of transport, but I could not direct traffic to go by any one particular form of transport. I am, however, bringing representatives of industry into consultation on what, I recognise, is a considerable problem.

Mr. Callaghan: Is it not a fact that this problem is getting worse because the Minister, under the Transport Act, removed any equalisation of charges between coastwise shipping and road transport? Does he not agree that if only he would go back to the previous system this problem would become much less?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. The problem is getting more difficult because of the growing industrial prosperity under this Government.

Road Haulage Assets (Disposal)

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if, in view of Section 3 (6) of the Transport Act, 1953, he will take steps to find out to what extent the practice is widespread of transferring vehicles from the original purchaser to other owners within, say, three months of their original sale.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am informed that the general effect of the limited number of such transfers which have been made has been to put the vehicles into a greater rather than a smaller number of hands.

Mr. Callaghan: I am very glad to hear that, but may I ask whether the Minister is conscious that what is happening is that a number of people are buying these vehicles, not for the purpose of going into transport, but in order immediately to re-sell them at a profit, and that in some cases—it is no use hon. Members shaking their heads—this is really getting near a financial racket?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No. I am conscious of the fact that all that the hon. Gentleman has said is quite untrue. A large proportion of these assignments are pure formalities—the assignment, for example, by a successful tenderer to a partnership or a company which he has himself formed; others are assignments to other small men; others again are assignments by a finance house to the proposed operator. There is no sign whatever of a "ganging up"—to use one of the hon. Gentleman's happy phrases during the proceedings on the Transport Bill, which he is now attempting to revise.

Mr. Callaghan: Will not the right hon. Gentleman make some detailed inquiries into the matter and not try to evade the point in this way? Does he not know that there is considerable concern among transport workers that people are making substantial profits out of tendering for lorries and then immediately re-selling them without any intention of going into the industry?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am prepared constantly to watch the development of this Act. The charges so loosely volunteered by the hon. Gentleman really do not bear scrutiny.

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware of the avoidable disturbance of the transport industry caused by the failure of intending purchasers to pay the agreed purchase price by the due date, with the result that vehicles are standing idle; and if he will issue a general direction to the British Transport Commission that such vehicles shall be used meantime to carry on the existing road haulage undertaking.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am informed by the British Transport Commission that while there has been no significant disturbance from this cause, they have already issued instructions for dealing with any cases that may arise. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Callaghan: Can the Minister tell us what the instructions are, because traffic in South Wales during the last 10 days has been held up by so-called purchasers failing to produce the purchase money, with the result that British Road

Services have had to refuse traffic while vehicles stand idle in their yards?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir, that is not so. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that in these transactions, compared with the nationalisation transactions, the Commission and the Disposal Board are asking for cash on the spot. In order to deal with any repetitions of the one or two cases that they have had, the Commission tell me they have already issued an instruction that where the purchase is not completed by the due date and it seems likely that it will not be completed within an extra day or two, the vehicles in question are to be put back into service as soon as possible.

Mr. Manuel: Is the Minister aware that during the Committee stage of the Transport Bill he told me that vehicles would not be withdrawn from traffic before being put up for sale, and that while I disagreed with that point of view he insisted on it? Will he now take steps to make certain that the flow-off to private enterprise is not being assisted by him by more of these vehicles being kept out of traffic than there ought to be?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I gave an assurance that we would do all we could to limit the period between ownership by British Road Services and the transfer to private ownership. That has been scrupulously observed, and the absence of any nationwide complaint has justified that action.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Nazi Victims (Compensation)

Captain Ryder: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in seeing that there is no discrimination in the payment of compensation to victims of Nazi concentration camps on grounds of nationality.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): I would refer to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend on 1st February. Since then, an answer has been received from the German Federal Chancellor and discussions are continuing between representatives of the High Commission and the Federal Government.

Captain Ryder: Would my hon. Friend point out to the West German Government that this is one of the ways in which they could win esteem in this country by seeing that the payment of compensation is fairly administered?

Mr. Nutting: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, we are trying to get a satisfactory conclusion in this matter together with our partners in the Allied High Commission.

Mr. Fernyhough: Can the hon. Gentleman give any idea how long it will be before all these victims receive the compensation to which they are entitled?

Mr. Nutting: That raises a rather broader question, but there is a compensation law. The existing dispute is as to the application of that law to various categories of claimants.

Spandau Gaol (Security Arrangements)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now state when he expects to give the result of his investigations into the security arrangements at Spandau Gaol.

Mr. Nutting: The inquiries which have been made show that some time ago there was a certain laxity in applying the Four Power security regulations, but the British Commandant in Berlin has instructions to take for his part appropriate steps to guard against a repetition of any irregularities.

Mr. Lewis: While thanking the Minister for that reply, which substantiates the charges that I have been making for some years, may I ask whether this will mean that Admiral Doenitz will not now be allowed to keep the agreement which he signed with a German publishing company to publish his continuation of Hitler's "Mein Kampf"?

Mr. Nutting: That raises a completely different question from the one on the Order Paper, which deals with irregularities in the administration of the present regulations at Spandau. That question I have answered.

Mr. Jeger: In view of the fact that Spandau is in the hands of four Powers, and not ourselves alone, has the Under-Secretary any information as to whether there has been laxity whilst any of the other Powers have been in control during

the months when they have taken over from us?

Mr. Nutting: I should need a little notice to ascertain what Government was responsible at the time when any irregularities were committed, but a fortnight ago, I think I should inform the House—I think it was during the Russian term of control—a bar of chocolate was found in Neurath's cell.

Mr. Paget: In view of the fact that Admiral Raeder was convicted solely of planning the invasion of Norway, and the Prime Minister's book has since disclosed that this planning started a fortnight after our own, will the hon. Gentleman take steps to secure the release of this unfortunate man?

Mr. Nutting: That raises a completely different question.

Frontier Control

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has yet been informed of the decision of the Federal Republic of Germany to extend its removal of frontier restrictions; and what reciprocal action Her Majesty's Government intend to initiate.

Mr. Nutting: The answer to the first part of the Question is: Yes, Sir. As regards the second part, the present system of aliens control in the United Kingdom does not permit us to reciprocate the action of the Federal Government.

Mr. Thomson: Would the Minister consider this matter carefully, to see if the United Kingdom cannot play a full part in easing travel restrictions and allowing citizens of different countries to move freely from one part of Europe to another?

Mr. Nutting: We are considering that issue and we have done a great deal to that effect. As the hon. Member will realise, however, the case of Germany is a rather special one, and involves the question of aliens control in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-IRAQ TREATY

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to replace the Anglo-Iraq 25-year treaty of 1930 by a new treaty.


as provided by Article 11, in view of the interests of both countries now protected by the treaty.

The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Although this is a matter which Her Majesty's Government have constantly in mind, I have no statement to make to the House at the present time.

Mr. Reid: May I ask if Iraq has a policy of neutralism, and, if so, how can a treaty of mutual security be signed by us?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think it is true at all to say that Iraq has a policy of neutralism.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Is my hon. Friend aware of the bedevilling influence of the Egyptian Government in this situation, in that Colonel Nasser, the Egyptian Premier, opening his Government's "Voice of the Arabs" broadcast programme from Cairo the other day, called upon all Arab States to repudiate their alliances with the West?

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST SECURITY

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what negotiations or discussions have taken place with the Israeli Government concerning the security of the Middle East;
(2) what consultations have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Israel concerning the negotiations with Egypt;
(3) what discussions have taken place with the Israeli Government concerning defensive arrangements for the Middle East following the evacuation of British troops from Egyptian territory.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No formal negotiations or discussions have taken place on these subjects with the Israel Government, but Her Majesty's Government have kept interested Governments, including the Israel Government, generally informed of the progress of our discussions with Egypt.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that if the defence of the Suez Canal area had to be moved further east, as seems logical, all lines of communication would of necessity pass through Israel? Is it not

therefore absolutely vital that Israel should be considered? Secondly, will he bear in mind that it is a trifle illogical to treat those who dislike us intensely with greater consideration than those who are prepared to like us?

Mr. Lloyd: As I stated during the foreign affairs debate, relations between Israel and the Arab States are one of the factors which we have taken into account in this matter.

Mr. Younger: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear that the obligations we undertook in our joint guarantee in 1950, with respect to Israel's frontiers, will be carried out irrespective of what may or may not happen to our base in Suez?

Mr. Lloyd: That is most certainly the position.

Mr. E. Johnson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Israel is one of our best friends in the Middle East and has a very valuable contribution to make to the defence of that area?

Mr. Lloyd: Our object is to seek to achieve good relations with all countries in the Middle East.

Mr. H. Morrison: In view of the fact that we, with others in the United Nations, are parties to the Resolution for the cessation of hostilities between the Arab States and Israel earlier on, is it not time that we took an active part in trying to get proper discussions between the Arab States and Israel, with a view to effecting peace, instead of continuing this armistice, which has existed for five or six years?

Mr. Lloyd: There is a difference between an active part and a public part. Her Majesty's Government are certainly seeking to get an alleviation of the situation in the area.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether he has any information that the Israeli Government would be or are prepared to take a closer interest in the defence of the Middle East than he has indicated today?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a different question.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am generally in sympathy with the negotiations which are now going on with Egypt, and am hopeful


of a satisfactory and constructive result, but will the right hon. and learned Gentleman nevertheless bear in mind that they will apparently involve leaving in Egyptian hands very powerful military installations at strategic points? Are any precautions being taken to see that those military installations are not used for mischievous purposes after we leave them?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to deal with details of the negotiations, but I can assure him that that is a matter which we have very much in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAUDI ARABIA (BUR AIMI DISPUTE)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations with the Saudi Arabian Government regarding the dispute in Buraimi.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Our latest proposals for bringing about conditions in which a fair arbitration of this dispute can take place are now under discussion with the Saudi Government. Good progress has been made, and I am hopeful that agreement will shortly be reached. I trust the House will not press me to say anything further at this stage.

Mr. Brockway: I welcome that reply, but will the right hon. and learned Gentleman pay particular attention to the allegations of hunger, especially among children, in some of the villages which are said to be suffering from a blockade? Will he take immediate action to relieve those in necessity.

Mr. Lloyd: We have had very careful regard to that matter, and I can tell the House and the hon. Member that, according to our information, those allegations are quite untrue.

Oral Answers to Questions — TUNISIA (WAR DAMAGE COMPENSATION)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that British subjects in Tunisia, including all Maltese, have not been paid any war damage compensation nine years after the

war, but that the French have been so paid; what reason has been given by the French authorities, in the course of his discussions with them, for this discrimination; and what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken and are intending to take to remedy this.

Mr. Nutting: The British subjects an question are not entitled to payment pending the extension to overeas territories of the Anglo-French War Damage Agreement of 1946. Negotiations to this end have been in progress for some years, but difficulties over the status of the French territories have caused serious delays. It now seems that these difficulties have at last been overcome, and I hope that we shall be able to sign the necessary supplementary agreement with the French Government in the near future.

Mr. Teeling: Can my hon. Friend give me any idea when that "near future" is likely to be? Many Maltese subjects who have no Member of Parliament in this House are suffering quite a lot—they are very poor people—and are considerably aggrieved because they seem to have been left out of consideration.

Mr. Nutting: I cannot say when we hope to sign this agreement, but the main difficulties have now been overcome. I can say that the Maltese are covered by the terms of the settlement and will be included.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-EGYPTIAN NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will name those Commonwealth Governments which have informed Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom that they approve of the total evacuation of British fighting troops from the Suez Canal zone.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have nothing to add to what I said during the debate on 14th July.

Mr. Maitland: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether it is true that the Government of Ceylon are greatly concerned that the neutrality of the Suez Canal should be maintained; that the Government of South Africa are greatly


alarmed at the possibility of total evacuation, and that in Australia and New Zealand the possibility has been canvassed of withdrawing air force units from the Mediterranean if we leave Suez altogether?

Mr. Lloyd: As I told my hon. Friend, I have nothing to add in this matter to what I said in the debate on 14th July. I really think that it is not in the public interest to press for the revelation of any communications there may have been upon this sort of matter between Commonwealth Governments and Her Majesty's Government. I would direct my hon. Friend's attention to a statement which the former Prime Minister—the present Leader of the Opposition—made upon this matter on 8th May, 1946. This statement seems to me to contain in a short compass an admirable definition of the relationship which should exist between Commonwealth Governments and Her Majesty's Government in matters of this sort.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am not asking the Minister to reveal anything he does not want to reveal in the public interest, but can he say whether it is a fact that the great bulk of Commonwealth opinion is in support of the policy which the Government are now pursuing?

Mr. Lloyd: I would direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention, as I have that of my hon. Friend, to what I said in the debate on 14th July.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will, during the Anglo-Egyptian negotiations, reaffirm that it is the intention of the signatories to the Tripartite Agreement that any act of aggression by any of the countries in the Middle East on any of their neighbours will be resisted.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: It is, of course, the intention of Her Majesty's Government, as I have already stated, to stand by the Tripartite Declaration of 25th May. 1950. Her Majesty's Government are considering the advisability of reaffirming this intention in connection with the present negotiations.

Mr. Shinwell: I welcome the statement which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just made, but is it not also vital that in the process of these important negotiations it should be made clear

beyond any possibility of doubt that the terms of the Tripartite Agreement will be applied?

Mr. Lloyd: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. A. Henderson: Does the Minister's reply mean that the other two signatories would be invited to re-affirm it, together with the United Kingdom Government?

Mr. Lloyd: I shall, for the time being, confine myself to the answer which I have given.

Mr. Janner: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman taken into fullest consideration the statement recently made by the Egyptian Minister of National Guidance to the effect that as soon as the troops have been removed from Egypt the Egyptian Army will be in a position to attack Israel? Will he see to it that arrangements for arms supply, or the relinquishing of military installations in Egypt, are not made until some definite understanding is received upon that point?

Mr. Lloyd: I have no responsibility for what the Egyptian Minister of National Guidance says. I am not at all certain whether it is admitted that he did say what it is reported he said. However that may be, I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in an earlier reply, that that is a matter which we certainly have very much in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPTIAN BROADCASTS, AFRICA (PROTEST)

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a new series of Egyptian Government broadcasts in Swahili, which were inaugurated by Major Saleh Salem, designed to encourage African, including Mau Mau, hostility to British colonial government; and whether, in particular, his attention has been called to a Swahili broadcast in this series on 10th July which attributed to Kenya spokesmen the fact that British injustice was aiming at breaking the morale of the people of Kenya and of those of all Africa; and whether he will protest to the Egyptian Government which is responsible for that broadcast.

Mr. Nutting: Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Ambassador in Cairo has been instructed to protest to the Egyptian Government.

Mr. Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware that on 18th July this offensive and gross libel against our Government in Africa was repeated?

Mr. Nutting: Broadcast programmes are very often repeated. I should have thought that my hon. Friend would have been satisfied to hear that a protest was to be made to the Egyptian Government.

Mr. Paget: Can the hon. Member tell us the proportion of Swahili-speaking Africans with receiving sets capable of picking up Egyptian broadcasts?

Mr. Nutting: That is another question. I think it can be better answered by the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Mr. P. Williams: In view of the possibility of broadcasts being re-broadcast, is there any possibility of a protest being re-protested?

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (ANGLO-AMERICAN STRATEGIC INTEREST)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether he will publish details of how far strategic interest in the Suez Canal zone is now shared with us by the United States Government.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I have been asked to reply. No, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister, in his speech in the foreign affairs debate, made specific reference to joint strategic interests involved in the Suez Canal zone? Is it possible to have details? Have the Government now abandoned the conception of the Middle East defence organisation?

Mr. Crookshank: That is quite another question. My right hon. Friend has got nothing to add to what he said on the subject in that debate, of which I am aware.

Mr. Shinwell: I am aware that the Prime Minister always has nothing to add to any question that is put to him.

What I want to know is what is meant by the reference the right hon. Gentleman made during the foreign affairs debate to joint strategic interests. That is what I am asking. Have the Government abandoned the conception of the Middle East defence organisation, which is related to strategic interests?

Mr. Crookshank: If my right hon. Friend has nothing to add on this subject, I certainly have not.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman has nothing to add to any of the Prime Minister's answers on this question because he knows nothing about the subject at all?

Sir T. Moore: That is rather cheap, is it not?

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS (FUTURE)

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has considered the effect on the security of the Eastern Mediterranean of the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to discuss the future of Cyprus with our allies the Greeks; and if he will therefore reconsider his decision.

Mr. Nutting: The security of the Eastern Mediterranean is naturally one of the factors which Her Majesty's Government have taken into account in their consideration of this matter. As regards the second part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. and learned Member on 19th July.

Mr. Mallalieu: Is it not a fact that British prestige in Greece is rapidly falling—[HON. MEMBERS: No."]—as a result of the failure of Her Majesty's Government to deal with the Cyprus question? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Does not the hon. Gentleman remember what Gladstone said in 1897? If he does not, may I remind him that he said that he hoped that Cyprus would very soon become a Greek island.

Mr. Nutting: We are now living in 1954, not 1897, and so far as the hon. and learned Gentleman's allegation that British prestige in Greece is falling is concerned, it is completely untrue.

Sir H. Williams: When was Cyprus ever a part of Greece?

Mr. Wyatt: Would not the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, as it is intended to expand the base in Cyprus as a result of removal from Suez, it would be as well to ensure in advance that the same political conditions which made an end of the base in Egypt do not occur in Cyprus? Is it not a good idea, instead of evading questions in this rather inane way, to give some thought to the future of Cyprus?

Mr. Nutting: The hon. Gentleman has entirely missed the point. Cyprus is British territory.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his saying that this is 1954 is the most direct and accurate answer that we have had from the Government today?

Mr. Nutting: No.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD

Food Standards

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food when he will be in a position to introduce further orders relating to food standards.

The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): This must depend in the first instance on the findings of the Food Standards Committee as and when it submits reports to me.

Mr. Dodds: Is not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman powerless to do very much unless and until the Food and Drugs Amendment Bill [Lords] becomes law?

Major Lloyd George: No. From time to time the Food Standards Committee submits reports to me. There is one coming forward shortly. Much can be done without the Bill's becoming law.

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Food on what date the Report of the Food Standards Committee about lead contamination will be published.

Major Lloyd George: In about a fortnight.

Mr. Willey: In view of the very proper public interest in this matter and of the widespread production of iced lollies, which is causing some concern, will the

right hon. and gallant Gentleman expedite action on this Report when he receives it?

Major Lloyd George: Yes.

Food Prices

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Food the price of the various cuts of beef, lamb and pork on 1st October, 1951, and on the first of each month since that date, until the latest convenient date.

Major Lloyd George: With permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the Statutory Instruments from which this information may be obtained. Under control, some 230 separate maximum retail prices were prescribed for cuts of beef, mutton, lamb, and pork, and a list of monthly prices for all of these would be too long for the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lewis: Is not the Minister giving that advice because he does not want to reveal the facts, which are all well known, that the prices of these cuts have all gone up since this Government have been in power, directly contrary to the policy the Government announced at the General Election? That is the reason why the old-age pensioners are asking for increased pensions today.

Major Lloyd George: As the hon. Gentleman says he knows the answers, he confirms me in the wisdom of my own.

Following is the list:
1951 Nos. 1313 and 1314.
1952 Nos. 1122 and 1123.
1953 Nos. 1095, 1096; 1409, 1410.
1954 Nos. 631 and 632.

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Food (1) what representations he has had from the Scottish Housewives League and from English housewives associations asking for the reimposition of price control on butcher meat, butter and tea; and what reply he has sent;
(2) what representations he has had from the Housewives League and associations asking for the reimposition of price control on bacon, eggs, Belfast smoked ham and gammon; and what reply he has sent.

Major Lloyd George: None from the Scottish Housewives League; one recently from the Dundee Women's Labour


Party about meat; and two, in 1953, from women's associations referring to the price of eggs. The reply to the first letter referred to the answers my hon. Friend gave to Questions by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) on 12th July; the reply to the second pointed out that the price of eggs was falling; and the reply to the third referred to the Government's general policy on food subsidies and removal of controls.

Mrs. Mann: With permission, Mr. Speaker, may I take twice the time in asking my supplementary? May I inform the right hon. and gallant Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] This noise and laughter amongst hon. Gentlemen opposite indicates vacant minds. May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman if he is aware that I knew perfectly well that he had had no representations from the Housewives' League—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why ask, then?"]—which stands exposed for what it is? Is he aware that the prices of the items I have mentioned have increased by 50 per cent.? Is not that altogether contrary to his own prognostications? Does he not think, therefore, that they should be controlled again?

Major Lloyd George: As far as I can follow the hon. Lady, I gather that she said that the prices of some of the commodities referred to have gone up by 50 per cent. That is not true of meat. It certainly is not true of eggs, because they are at lower prices than when they were under control. It certainly is not true of some classes of bacon. I do not understand what the hon. Lady is saying.

Meat (Inspection)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Food whether he will place the inspection of all meat under the control of veterinary surgeons as recommended by the recent report, a copy of which has been sent to him, of the committee formed to investigate this matter particularly in view of the fact that this is the custom in most other cases in Western Europe.

Major Lloyd George: The inspection of meat and the appointment of the necessary officers are matters within the responsibility of local authorities under the Food and Drugs Act.

Mr. Freeman: In view of the fact that nine-tenths of the cases of food poisoning are traceable to meat, would it not be better to have meat inspection under the control of people trained in the matter, rather than under that of sanitary inspectors who are not?

Major Lloyd George: That is a matter of opinion. The veterinary people naturally think that they are the best at the job. Curiously enough, the sanitary inspection people think they are. On the whole, the best thing to do is to have a compromise and to permit such arrangements as are carried out by the city of Manchester, for instance, where they work side by side with great proficiency.

Mr. Baldwin: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the report was issued without having any proper inspection of slaughterhouses? Is he aware that for the veterinary profession to get this matter into their hands is wrong, and that sanitary inspectors, generally speaking, are trained in the inspection of meat, and that it would be better to leave the work to the sanitary inspectors?

Ministry of Food (Future)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Food what representations he has received from the Wholesale Grocers' Association of Scotland concerning the future of his Department; and what reply he has sent.

Major Lloyd George: In May of last year the association sent me a copy of a resolution passed at its annual conference and it has recently written to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about it. The association has been told that its views will be carefully considered along with representations received from other interested parties.

Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the association deplored any prospect of his Ministry's being transferred to some other Ministry. Has he given any assurance that it will not?

Major Lloyd George: I have nothing to add to what the Prime Minister said in reply to a similar Question. The association also referred to another matter. It welcomed in the most wholehearted way the end of control and rationing.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. H. Morrison: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make about business?

Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir.
We do not propose to proceed with the Pests Bill [Lords] on Friday, but we shall take the Second Reading of the Food and Drugs Amendment Bill [Lords] already announced for that day.

Sir H. Williams: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether any statement is to be made about Geneva? Can he tell me how far Geneva is from Munich?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: When are we to get the Pests Bill, in which there is a great deal of interest?

Mr. Crookshank: I could not give a date now. I announced that two Bills would be Liken on Friday and all I am saying now is that the Food and Drugs Bill will be the first Order.

Sir T. Moore: Is not the delay in introducing the Pests Bill due to the filibustering attitude adopted by the Opposition?

Mr. de Freitas: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that the Pests Bill will definitely be taken next week or before we rise for the Recess?

Mr. Crookshank: I shall deal with that when I announce the business for next week. I do that tomorrow.

Mr. de Freitas: I know that, but I am asking the question now.

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock."—[Mr. Crookshank.]

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crookshank.]

TRANSFER OF HOUSES

Mr. John Parker: I beg to move.
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the transfer, 10 years after construction or acquisition, of houses, buildings or land provided under the Housing Acts, 1936 to 1952, by the London County Council or other local authority outside its own area to the local authority for the area in which the houses, buildings or land are situated.
The Bill is an attempt to meet the needs arising from a very acute problem in my constituency, Dagenham, but this problem is also serious in a number of other areas, and will be of growing importance in many districts in the early future.
At present more than half of the houses in my constituency belong to an outside municipal authority, the London County Council, for whom the ratepayers in Dagenham do not vote and over whose policy they have no control. When 17,000 out of a total of 30,000 houses belong to an outside authority it creates a very serious problem for the people living in that district. In addition to the 17,000 belonging to the London County Council, there are 3,000 belonging to the local council, there is an estate belonging to West Ham Council, and there are about 10,000 privately-owned houses. There is very little room in the area to build more houses; at most, there is room for perhaps 3,000 more, whether municipally or privately owned. The number on the housing list is about 4,400. This means that there is very little prospect of a large part of the population being rehoused in the area.
The London County Council are reasonably good landlords and maintain property in good repair, but the fact remains that most of the houses on the Becontree Estate, which forms the greater part of the L.C.C. housing in Dagenham, were built between 1925 and 1933, some 20 or 30 years ago. When that estate was built, the people who moved in were newly-married couples or people who already had small families. We thus have a large population growing up in the area.
At present we have a partial solution to the problem of finding houses for this population. When people grow old or die, the London County Council usually give the tenancy of the house to the eldest grown-up child living in the house. That


is frequently done, but it meets the needs of only a small part of the population which is growing up in Dagenham, and a large number of people cannot be found houses in that way. Out of the 17,000 L.C.C. houses, quite a number fall vacant each year, but those vacancies are not given to local inhabitants; they are given to new people who come in from the London County Council area. That is producing a real grievance among the inhabitants of the district.
Immediately after the war the London County Council made arrangements by which sons and daughters of tenants were allowed to go on to the L.C.C. housing list and were found houses on different new housing estates built by the L.C.C. But the L.C.C.'s own lists in London grew so large that that privilege was cancelled. At present the L.C.C. allot 50 houses a year to be filled by the Dagenham Council and the Dagenham Council make a financial contribution in return for that concession. When these houses are allocated, they are not allocated in Dagenham, however; they are allocated on other L.C.C. estates very much further out. The result is that Londoners are allocated houses in Dagenham and frequently have to travel a long way to and from their work, whereas the people from Dagenham may be allocated houses in some other L.C.C. estate, such as Aveley, and may have to travel a long way to and from their places of work. That is not at all a satisfactory solution.
The fact is that council estates grow up as individuals do, and when an estate is 20 or 30 years old it should be considered to be adult and arrangements should be made, I believe, for it to be transferred, if the people wish, to the local authority within whose boundaries it happens to be. We have already made such arrangements for new towns. When the new towns corporations have completed their job and when the new towns are going concerns, they will hand over the houses and all their properties to the local authority on the spot. That is a very useful precedent which I suggest we should now follow in the case of estates built by councils outside their own boundaries, when these estates become mature.
In Dagenham such a large part of the property belongs to an outside council that it is a very acute problem, but it is

also serious in neighbouring areas, such as Barking and Ilford, where many houses are also L.C.C. owned, although in those areas the L.C.C. houses form a very much smaller part of the total housing available.
I suggest that after 10 years, when an estate has settled down, the local authority on the spot should have the option of approaching the Ministry of Housing and the owning authority—the L.C.C. or any other owning council—and of making proposals to take over the estate with, of course, all outstanding financial liabilities. Certain problems may arise. One might concern the question of repairs. I suggest that if the owning council has not maintained the estate in proper repair, then that should be borne in mind from the financial point of view when the estate is taken over and some arbitration should be arranged by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to settle how far the repairs have been done.
This problem is already becoming important in many areas around London where estates were built by the L.C.C. before the war. Many new estates have been constructed since the war or are under construction now, so that this problem will grow as estates in other authorities, such as those at Harold Hill, Ockendon and Slough, mature in the years to come. I suggest that we should take steps now to enable a local authority to take over an estate after ten years if it wants to do so.
This is mainly a problem of greater London, and even if we have a reform of local government, as the Government have proposed, it is unlikely that the boundaries of London will be extended so as to cover all the estates which the L.C.C. have built in every part of southern England. Even in the north and the Midlands, many estates have been built by local authorities outside their boundaries, and if these estates are not subsequently brought inside their boundaries, a similar problem will arise.
We ought to pass a Bill of this kind so as to enable any authority which finds an outside authority owning an estate which is growing up within its boundaries to take it over. This is a serious problem that is likely to grow in the years to come; a solution on these lines is the right way to deal with it.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: I rise to oppose this Bill. My first point is that I think that it would have been good manners, to put it politely, if, before a matter of this kind was raised, affecting the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), some discussions had taken place with the people likely to be affected. So far as I know, there is no demand in that part of Greater London for this Bill. I know of one area close to my hon. Friend's constituency which is not supporting the Bill, and I think that it would have been well if talks had gone on, particularly with the authorities which my hon. Friend mentioned or with the London County Council, before such a proposition was put forward.
The fact is that in Dagenham and Barking, and all the areas round that side of London, a great deal of additional housing for the local inhabitants has been provided with the co-operation of the L.C.C. In one case, co-operation is now going on in the building of a new estate, and it is quite false, therefore, to give the impression to the House and to the country that there is friction between the local authorities in that part of Essex and the L.C.C.
There are also some practical difficulties. Even if the House decided that this Bill should be put through—and that in itself would be very difficult to do at this late stage of the Session—the fact is that none of the local authorities immediately concerned could possibly stand the financial loss to them if they had to take over these estates. The Becontree Estate of the L.C.C. has cost London many millions of pounds.
An enormous sum is spent each year in maintaining the houses on this estate in decent condition and providing social facilities for the people living in the area which. if they had to depend on the financial ability of the local authorities, probably would not be provided. If the estates were taken over by the authorities

in whose areas they are, then those authorities would also have to take over the balance of the capital cost and all the deficits each year, because there are large financial losses on all these estates year by year. It seems to me that my hon. Friend has not given very much thought to what this Bill might mean to the authorities on behalf of whom he seemed to be speaking.
The only reason the London County Council have ever gone outside the county is because of the enormous housing list which they have.

Mr. Ellis Smith: That applies to other large areas.

Mr. Gibson: I agree that it applies to many other large areas in the country. The L.C.C. had special powers to enable it to go outside the county because of the enormous overcrowding in London. I know that my hon. Friend has taken some part in preaching the need for the proper town planning of London and all our other great cities, but in the case of London we should have to decant at least 500,000 Londoners to somewhere outside London. [An HON. MEMBER: "To Scotland."] If Scotland would be prepared to bear the cost of taking 500,000 Londoners and providing them with jobs as good as they have in London, with as good housing accommodation and all the social facilities, I have no doubt that a good many London Scotsmen would be willing to go home.
I think that proper consideration should be given to the enormous financial implications and to the way in which the staff run and maintain these estates. I believe that the Bill, if passed, would lead to unnecessary trouble and friction in these areas, and would be bad for housing and bad for the people of London who have spent so many millions of pounds on this project. I hope the House will refuse leave to introduce the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[24TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1954–55

CLASS X

VOTE 2. MINISTRY OF PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,790,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, including certain expenses in connection with national insurance, industrial injuries insurance, family allowances, workmen's compensation, war pensions and sundry other services.—[£1,650,000 has been voted on account.]

Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again "[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn]—put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS AND BENEFITS (INCREASE)

3.47 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I beg to move.
That this House expresses its deep concern at the failure of Her Majesty's Government to increase the rates of benefit of old-age pensions and other National Insurance and war-disabled benefits, and calls upon the Government to take immediate action to raise these benefits.
A few weeks before the Budget we would have considered a Motion similar to the one on the Order Paper today to be entirely unnecessary, because, as the House will recall, we had a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) when it seemed to be proved conclusively that the cost of living called for an immediate increase in National Insurance benefits.
On that occasion, we listened to a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance, who, I thought, was extremely sympathetic. Indeed, harmony prevailed. I think that the only charge made by the Parliamentary Secretary was that I alone struck a contentious note. He explained on that occasion that his presence at the Box was because representatives of the Treasury had hidden behind a kind of pre-Budget purdah. This rather led us to believe that the Treasury would provide an increase in the National Insurance benefits, and that the Treasury representatives had deliberately absented themselves for fear of committing some verbal indiscretion.
It was with this preliminary survey in our minds that we listened to a Budget which proved to be such a great disappointment to the very poorest in the community. It was profoundly disappointing to this side of the House. I suspect that it had the same effect on many Members opposite. Whether my surmise is correct or not, we shall discover in the Division Lobbies tonight.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech and on subsequent occasions, appeared to have an inexhaustible fund of sympathy for the aged, which he pours out on every conceivable occasion. The aged people cannot be fed on crocodile tears. They ask for some


immediate assurance that their needs are uppermost in the Chancellor's mind.
The Chancellor conveyed the impression that he was waiting for certain reports before he took any action. This view is embodied in the Amendment to the Motion. I understand—and my source of information is a Government spokesman—that the reports for which the Government are waiting are, (1) that of the National Advisory Committee on the Employment of Older Men and Women, set up in 1952; (2) that of the Phillips Committee, which is reviewing the economic and financial problems of providing for old age, having regard to the prospective increase in the number of old people in our midst; (3) the quinquennial review by the Government Actuary.
I contend that not one of those reports is necessary in order to meet the immediate need of the old-age pensioners. If the Government adopted this procedure on the receipt of wage claims, there would be stoppages in every part of the country. I do not recall that when the judges were given their increase a committee was set up to inquire into their way of life. Let me examine these Committees, and their relationship to old-age pensions.
The Committee on the Employment of Older Men and Women is clearly not concerned with this matter, and I do not think that the Minister can support the argument that it is. The Phillips Committee is an excellent one. The chairman of it is Sir Thomas Phillips, the First Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance. The Committee is ranging over a very wide field, including considerations of retirement age and retirement conditions, which, while they will provide very interesting food for thought, are not related to the immediate problem of an increase for the aged.
The quinquennial review is a statutory obligation. When it was embodied in the Act, nobody suggested that the day-to-day business of the Ministry of National Insurance should be held up pending this inquiry. I understand that the review started at the end of March and will take many months to complete. To call these committees in aid at this stage is a shabby expedient which will deceive no one. Meanwhile, the old people must wait. The Chancellor has

not realised that old age is the only age which cannot afford to wait. Dangling an increase of pension before an old-age pensioner to whom a year or even a few months represents a large proportion of his expectation of life is heartless.
I will now refer to the cost of living, which will no doubt provoke a reply from the Minister. In assessing the cost of living, we should be increasingly critical of the validity of the cost of living index. [Interruption.] I know that that sounds like heresy, but this is not a party matter. The Minister of Labour has a very high reputation. In examining wage claims, he has shown that he is not satisfied with the Cost-of-Living Index which has been presented to him and he has asked for certain household budgets to be furnished to him so that he can institute a survey and, I hope, eventually make representations on the matter. It was clear to me from the interruption just now that hon. Members on the Government benches will charge me with using the same index. I am not going to run away from that charge. We have never claimed infallibility, but this vast insurance scheme is still in its initial stages, and pensioners, who must limit their expenditure in the main to purchases of food, occupy a very special position.
It is estimated by some people that the old-age pensioner spends 70 per cent. of his income on food, in spite of the fact that the Cost-of-Living Index gives the average position as based on 40 per cent. of food. If the Minister reads "The Times" today, he will see that I have the support of that newspaper. Since October, 1951, the food component—and I apologise for giving these figures to the House, but they are inevitable—of the Interim Index of Retail Prices has risen by 17 per cent., and the fuel and light component by 18 per cent., yet the vast majority of retirement pensioners have received only 2s. 6d. increase in benefit, that is, 8½ per cent. Furthermore, the pensioner contends that relatively he is worse off than any other section of the community. I should like to examine that point.
When the basic pension of 26s. was fixed in the National Insurance Act, 1946, the average weekly wage of all workers was £5 1s. per week, so the retirement pension was almost exactly 26percent.of the average weekly wage. The average


weekly wage of all workers in 1953 was £8 0s. 1d. The 32s. 6d. retirement pension is thus only 20·43 per cent. of the average weekly wage. It is clear that the relative position of the pensioner has got very much worse. The National Assistance Board Report reflects the fact that pensioners have had to resort to the Board in increasingly large numbers. I hope that the Minister realises that all this means that National Insurance benefits and National Assistance are very closely related.
It is inevitable that if insurance benefits are increased National Assistance must follow. The National Assistance Board Report tells only half the story. Pensioners who are in need seek help from a variety of sources, all of which helps the Treasury in some respects to defer an increase in pensions. I must apologise for constantly mentioning the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury, but finally they have to make the decision.
I should like to give examples of the help which pensioners have today. Local authorities, through their old people's welfare committees, recognise that it is absolutely essential to give help, so in most urban areas there is a scheme for cheap meals. The charge for the meals is usually not economic, in consequence of which voluntary help has to be sought, and it is not always available. I shall give details of how the pension is supplemented in another way, and how that supplementary aid is increasing. I asked the representative of the London County Council to give me some details as to the kind of help which is available in the London County Council area. It is interesting to observe that, of the 2,000 home helps in the London County Council area, 80 per cent. work for the aged, and that of the 450 home nurses in the same area, 60 per cent. care for the aged. It seems to me that an increase of pensions in these households is urgently needed.
The Treasury is pursuing a shortsighted policy in not recognising that it is cheaper and more humane to keep the old people in their homes. I present this aspect of the case to the Minister in the hope of an eleventh-hour conversion. For the first time in London, we have this week an international conference on gerontology, which is the modern

terminology for the state of senescence, the process of ageing, and something in which most of us in this House have a lively interest.
The fact that an international conference has been called for the first time in London, and no doubt as the years go on such conferences will be held in other capitals as well, is an indication that the care and treatment of the aged has assumed a new importance. We are all familiar, at least from the outside, with geriatric clinics designed for the rehabilitation of old people who have deteriorated physically and mentally, often through neglect and under-nourishment. These clinics, which were unknown a few years ago, are now a familiar part of the medical scene.
The Minister, and indeed all Government representatives who are concerned with providing services for old people, should recognise that this new service, a service to rehabilitate the aged, together with a demand for institutional treatment for the aged, is an expensive process. It cost four times the amount of the old-age pension to keep an old person in a home, and the demand for accommodation is far from satisfied. Unfortunately, there are certain families who regard the aged as a burden which should be borne by others. I think it should be said that the Welfare State does not absolve sons and daughters from the moral obligation of giving their parents comfort and care in their old age.
In my opinion, and I believe that I am supported in this by many eminent medical officers of health, wherever possible the right place for an aged person is in his or her own home surrounded by familiar things accumulated over a lifetime. Of course, there should be available in every locality domiciliary services, nursing services, meals on wheels, and so on. But these must be supplemented by an increase in the pension. Unless the old people are given a greater sense of financial independence, their conditions will deteriorate, and they will meekly consent to go into an institution of some kind.
This is the aspect of the problem which I think the Chancellor should face. If he continues this cheeseparing policy, it is inevitable that more and more people will demand to go into institutions. The extra benefit for which we are asking today should not be regarded by the Minister


solely as an increase in expenditure, but as an addition to an inadequate pension, and one which may well be the means of relieving the pressure on geriatric units, hospitals and other institutions catering for the aged. Indeed, I believe that the Treasury should now develop an entirely new approach. It should regard such an increase in pensions as an investment which will give it profitable returns in terms of money, and certainly in terms of human happiness.

4.5 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake): This Motion, which the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham. West (Dr. Summer-skill) has moved in a speech which I think is commendable for its moderation as well as for its brevity, deals with three matters—old-age pensions, other National Insurance benefits, and war disability pensions. It speaks of the failure of the Government to increase the rates, and calls for immediate action to raise them.
I want, first, to deal quite shortly with war disability pensions. In recent years, by a considerable act of self-denial on both sides of the House, we have succeeded in keeping the position of war pensioners very largely out of party politics. Therefore, I rather regret that they should be mentioned in the Motion. The Motion deals with the rates of pension and of benefit. It is not concerned with the many trimmings in the form of special allowances and supplements for the seriously disabled which both the War Disability Code and the Industrial Injury Code have provided in increasing measure in recent years.
So far as the war disability rate of pension is concerned, the facts speak for themselves. They need no comment from me. In 1946, the basic rate for the unmarried private soldier was fixed at 45s. In 1951, six years later, when right hon. Gentlemen opposite declared their innings closed and retired, the basic rate stood at exactly the same figure, 45s. Its actual value, of course, had fallen during those six years from 45s. to 35s.
Our first action on taking over responsibility in 1951 was, in accordance with our election promise, to survey the whole pensions field. Despite the financial difficulties which we inherited, we raised the basic rate to 55s. and the

war widows' rate, which had also remained unaltered for six years, from 35s. to 42s. We recognise, of course, that the increases made in 1952 did not fully make good the whole of the loss of value which had taken place in the six preceding years. We are determined, before we leave office, to see that their value is restored to what Parliament intended it should be when the post-war rates were settled in 1946.
The question outstanding is, at what time can a further increase be made? An increase in the basic rate of war pension is a costly matter. All the money comes from the Exchequer, and Is. a week on the pension costs round about £1 million. It would be ridiculous to suppose that war disability pensions can be dealt with, as some people claim, in splendid isolation. Therefore, it is not surprising that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer should wish to get some idea of what his other commitments may be as a result of the quinquennial review, now in progress, of the National Insurance scheme. But war disability pensioners may be assured that in any upward movement of pension rates they will automatically get priority. Fortunately for them, changes in their case can be made by Royal Warrant, and can be made effective more quickly than other changes in pension which require legislation.
I now turn to that part of the Motion which deals with National Insurance benefits and pensions. It has been suggested, both inside and outside the House, that poverty is widespread and that poverty is the reason which calls for an urgent and immediate increase in insurance pension rates. But it is to be observed—and this is a matter of great importance—that the Motion does not refer to National Assistance scales. I am sure that the omission has not been made by mistake. The omission is deliberate. Two and a half million people cannot have been overlooked by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. And I believe this omission is made because hon. Members not only know that the National Assistance Board is doing a good job of work but, I hope, also because they realise that the assistance scales, which were raised to their present level in 1952, provide a better standard of living than at any earlier period. The 1952 scales, 35s. plus rent allowance for a single per-


son, and 59s. plus rent allowance for a married couple, are no less than 75 per cent. above the 1946 level for a single person, and about 70 per cent. above that level for a married couple.

Mr. Tom Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that we have deliberately omitted reference to any advance of the National Assistance scales. Let me assure him that this is not the case. That was not included in the Motion on the Order Paper because it would have confused the two issues. May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that at a subsequent date, perhaps tomorrow, another Motion will be on the Order Paper dealing with National Assistance scales.

Mr. Peake: If such a Motion appears on the Order Paper, I shall be prepared to deal with it. In fact, the new scales introduced in 1952 made allowance for a greater future advance in the cost of living than ohas occurred. I will concede at once that there are a number of people—it is difficult to judge how many—who are too proud to avail themselves of assistance.

Mr. James Griffiths: A laree number.

Mr. Peake: What is beyond argument is that anyone who will go to the Assistance Board can obtain more of the necessaries of life than at any previous time in the history of the Board.
I want to look for a moment at the results of the National Food Survey, with which the right hon. Lady is no doubt familiar, since it was operated for five years whilst she was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food. I want to tell the House what the National Food Survey tells us about pensioners in general. These reports of the National Food Survey compare the actual consumption in calories of households—I hate the word "calories" but that is the way experts measure—with standards of what is necessary laid down by the British Medical Association. One of the groups included in the survey are old-age pensioners. The results are collated and the average consumption in calories is then expressed as a percentage of the B.M.A. standard.
In the period January to February, 1951, the percentage of calories consumed in all households sampled was 100, but at that time the calorie consumption of pensioner households was only 93 per cent. of what the B.M.A. considered necessary. I now compare that period, three years ago, with the first quarter of this current year, 1954. First, for all households the standard of consumption has risen from 100 per cent. in 1951 to 104 per cent. in 1954. That is an improvement upon which we may congratulate ourselves. People are better fed now than they were three years ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] These are the official figures.
However, there is an even more startling change when we see what has happened in the households of the old-age pensioners. In 1951 their intake of calories was 93 per cent. of the B.M.A. standard and it fell 7 per cent. short of what the B.M.A. considered necessary. It has now gone up to no less than 109—

Miss Jennie Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt? It is rather important.

Mr. Peake: No, I cannot give way.

Miss Lee: It is wrong.

Mr. Peake: There is a bigger improvement in consumption in the pensioner household over the last three years than there is for the population taken as a whole. Three years ago pensioners were getting on an average 7 per cent. less calories than the B.M.A. considered necessary, whereas they are now getting 9 per cent. in excess of the standard requirement. Those are striking figures. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] These are the figures of the survey conducted by the Ministry of Food since the middle of the war, which was carried on by the right hon. Lady, when she was Parliamentary Secretary, for a period of no less than five years. These figures regarding consumption can be confirmed by other indications of the absence of poverty, hunger and hardship in the country today such as there used to be a good many years ago. Surely we can all get satisfaction from the improvement that has occurred over the past Generation?

Mr. Percy Shurmer: The Labour Government made a good start in 1945.

Mr. Peake: I am on the point now of actual poverty and hardship. I am confirmed in my view by an experiment made by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) who challenged me on this matter in October last year. He conducted a personal inquiry into the matter by putting advertisements in or sending letters to his local newspapers inviting people to send him cases of hardship which had come to their notice. The result of his inquiry was that the hon. Gentleman sent me in all some 15 letters, and I have the details here.
Of the 15 cases, three of them contain general statements without any individual particulars. One was from a war widow, one was from a person not yet in receipt of pension. Of the remaining 10 cases, in not one case was a single person or married couple obliged to rely solely on a retirement pension at the basic rate of 32s. 6d. The total weekly resources of the married couples in the cases which he sent me ranged from £3 6s. 6d., with rent-free accommodation, to over £5, with a rent of under 10s., whilst among the single persons the smallest weekly income was 41s. and the largest about £6.

Mr. Norman Dodds: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me at this belated hour to put this matter in proper perspective. It is quite correct that I advertised in the local papers. If I had known my job and the right hon. Gentleman had known his, I would have realised the truth of what I was told—that many old-age pensioners cannot even write letters and find it difficult to put all the complication of an income in a letter. As a result, the local Old Age Pensioners' Association asked me to do the job properly and I went to the homes of these old people and spoke to them. I was appalled at the misery that I found there and I invited the Minister to do the same thing, but he did not do so.

Mr. Peake: I looked into the cases which were sent to me by the hon. Member and I shall be delighted to do the same if any other hon. Member cares to send me particulars of cases.

Mr. Shurmer: Spend a week in an old-age pensioner's home.

Mr. Peake: The hon. Member for Dartford was appealing to people to send

him particulars of distressing cases. I have had some letters from old people which were unsolicited. I should like to read to the House extracts from letters which I received when the National Federation of Old-Age Pensioners was conducting its great campaign in February of this year. Here is a letter from an old lady who lives in Ramsgate. I shall not give her name, but hon. Members may see the letter if they so wish. She writes:
Dear Sir.
I am an elderly single woman, 85 nearly.…I think we are looked after very well. I am thankful for what I get from the Supplementary. It pays my rent. Of course I don't drink. If I did I should have to go without clothes and some food, as drink is so very expensive, and some food is today. I always buy what I think has most nourishment in it so I think the people who grumble want money for enjoyments, etc.…If one can be happy, so can they all. So Cheerio, all the best of luck to you, Sir.

Mr. George Thomas: Eighty-five and unmarried!

Mr. Peake: Here is another letter from an old gentleman of 70. He says:
I have a retirement pension of 32s. 6d. a week plus a little more in the shape of a Supplemental from the Assistance Board. This enables me to live in decent surroundings instead of demoralising squalor.…It is good of any Government to be considerate to sensitive pensioners.
These letters show that the general information about great poverty and hardship on National Assistance is a misunderstanding at the present time.
I hope that I have made it clear that the National Assistance Board is the organ of government primarily designed for the relief of poverty and distress and that the Opposition Motion does not refer to National Assistance at all. It follows that poverty and distress have little direct relevance to the question of insurance benefits and pensions which we are discussing today. As I have stated on many occasions—and this is a very relevant factor in today's debate—what gives me cause for concern is the growing number of persons, mainly pensioners, who since 1946 have been forced to seek assistance. Indeed, I want to make it clear that one of the main purposes of an increase in the insurance pension and in other insurance benefits would be to relieve pressure on the National Assistance Board.
We all embarked with enthusiasm on the comprehensive scheme of National Insurance in 1946. We all hoped that the rates of benefit then fixed would keep their value, and that most people, whether elderly, sick or unemployed, would be able to get along without recourse to assistance. What, in fact, has happened? During the war some measure of inflation was inevitable. Wartime shortages led to rising prices. At the end of the war, in 1946, the cost of living was 31 per cent. above 1939.
It was on that basis that the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) fixed the levels of benefits in the 1946 Act and told us of the intention of the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), to hold the cost of living at that figure. But the cost of living rose from 31 per cent. above pre-war in 1946 to 69 per cent. above pre-war in 1951. The cost of living rose just about as much during the six years 1946–51 as it had risen during the six years of war itself.
It is not surprising that a sense of disillusion, disappointment and despair should have spread through the hearts and minds of many worthy people whose circumstances compelled them to live, or to try to live, on small fixed incomes, people who, very often by their own thrift and self-denial, had put aside what they hoped would be sufficient for their old age. It is difficult to exaggerate the harm done to our social fabric by this six-year period of inflation. What surprises me——

Mr. E. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman surprises everybody. I do not believe that he believes it.

Mr. Peake: I am surprised that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite apparently do not realise the harm that their policies have done or show any sign of regret for the injury that they have inflicted on their fellow citizens. The result of inflation and rising prices in the years following 1946, when insurance benefits were fixed, was, of course, a progressive fall in the value of benefits and pensions.
In the relief of distress there are two possible courses open to a Government faced with a continuing fall in the value of money. They can either leave insurance benefits and contributions where

they are and rely upon increased scales of assistance for the avoidance of poverty and distress or, on the other hand, by increasing insurance benefits and the contributions appropriate to them, they can seek to maintain the insurance principle and keep insurance benefits as the first defence against poverty and need. The former, that is to say, reliance on assistance, is probably the cheaper in cash, but I believe it to be wasteful and expensive in terms of the damage that it inflicts on society by penalising thrift and undermining the virtues of independence and self-help. There is here a cleavage of political philosophy between the two sides of the House.
During the period of inflation from 1946 to 1951 the Socialist Government relied entirely on increases in the assistance scales for the avoidance of hardship, with a consequent steady increase in the numbers dependent on assistance. The scales were raised in July, 1948. They were raised again in June. 1950, and again in September, 1951.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It is time that they were raised again.

Mr. Peake: Throughout the whole of these years, of course, insurance benefits fell in value. The 26s. of 1946 was worth only 20s. 2d. by 1951. The 42s. rate for a married couple fell in the same period to 32s. 8d.

Mr. J. Griffiths: What is it worth now?

Mr. Peake: At no time was any endeavour made to maintain or to restore the insurance principle. Meanwhile, the number on assistance grew rapidly.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman complete the picture and tell us what its value has been in successive years—in the three years while he has been Minister?

Mr. Peake: I have not those figures at the moment. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The right hon. Member, of course, knows that we raised all insurance benefits by 25 per cent. in 1952.

Mr. Griffiths: rose——

Mr. Peake: I cannot give way.

Mr. Griffiths: rose——

Mr. Peake: It was not only——

Mr. Griffiths: rose——

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it not the accepted convention of this House that a Minister should give way when he is asked a reasonable question?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): If the Minister does not choose to give way, hon. Members must resume their seats.

Mr. Griffiths: May I point out that this Motion has been on the Order Paper for some days? This matter is of very great importance. The Minister has put before the House changes in the value of the £ up to 1951. The right hon. Gentleman has been Minister for three years; surely he owes it to the House to give the figures up to today?

Mr. Peake: I have now been furnished with the figures, which I shall e happy——

Mr. Hector Hughes: Further to the point of order. Is it not an indulgence and special pleading when a Minister puts forward one set of figures for one year without giving the comparative figures for another year? Is it not right that he should give way to have the matter corrected?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Member knows perfectly well that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Peake: Here are the figures for which the right hon. Member for Llanelly asked. I said that the 26s. of 1946 had fallen in value to 20s. 2d. by October. 1951. The corresponding figure for the 32s. 6d., which we introduced in the year 1952—that is, its value at 1946 prices—was 23s. 8d. in October, 1952: 23s. 3d. in October, 1953, and 22s. 11d. at present, compared with 20s. 2d.——

Mr. Griffiths: When the right hon. Gentleman became Minister of National Insurance, the rate for pensions was not 26s.; it was 30s.

Mr. Peake: I am coming to that precise point and would have made it if I had not been interrupted. Meanwhile, the numbers on National Assistance during this period of inflation from 1945 to 1951 grew rapidly from 1 million in 1948 to 2 million in 1951. It was not indeed until the Budget of 1951 that the right

hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) proposed any increase in pensions, and then it was limited to pensioners over 70. No increase was proposed in unemployment benefit, in sickness benefit, or in war disability pensions.
It is true that in the course of the debates on the 1951 Bill the Socialist Government were forced by back-bench pressure to extend the class of pensioners qualifying for the increase. In the upshot, it went to all those who had attained the age of 65 on 1st October, 1951, but it was denied to anyone who attained the age of 65 after that magic date. By a singular coincidence, right hon. Members opposite quitted office and embarked on a General Election at precisely the date when the increase became operative. The additional cost of the 1951 changes was to add £90 million a year to the emerging cost on the National Insurance Fund, and this was done without any corresponding increase in contributions.
The House is well aware of the steps we took when we assumed office. Believing in and desiring to restore the insurance principle, our first step was to enact by legislation the restoration of a uniform level of benefit, 25 per cent. above that prescribed in the Act of 1946. Corresponding increases were made for industrial injury benefits, and contributions under both schemes were increased by the actuarial amounts required. War pensions were increased at the same time.
I am afraid I may have wearied the House with this simple recital of the facts.

Mr. Dodds: Not simple.

Mr. Peake: It has been rendered necessary by recent misrepresentation in the "Daily Herald," the official organ of the Opposition, which claims over 6 million readers. We might expect that organ at least to get its facts right on elementary matters so closely affecting the welfare of its readers——

Sir Frederick Messer: Facts are always right.

Mr. Peake: —but in Monday's leading article—the day before yesterday—were two serious misstatements calculated to deceive the simple-minded. They seem to have deceived, for example, the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr Lewis) who referred to them with


approval in a supplementary question to me on that very same Monday afternoon.

Mr. Dodds: He is not simple-minded.

Mr. Peake: These statements were, first, that the basic pension had remained unchanged since September, 1951. That deliberately ignored the increase this Government made in 1952. The further, and equally serious, misstatement was that:
The soldier completely incapacitated by war wounds gets 76s. 6d.—in some cases special allowances.
The fact is that the married ex-private, of whom the newspaper was speaking, who is completely incapacitated, can never get less than £5 11s. 6d., and in many cases he gets more. It seems that the Opposition case on pensions and benefits has been prepared in some haste.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Minister will recollect—if he refers to HANSARD he will see it reported—that what I said was that the Chancellor, in answer to a Question by me, had in fact admitted that £335 million had been given back per year to the rich taxpayer and Surtax payer, and if he refers to the "Daily Herald" he will see how the cost of living has risen. I quoted the figures showing how the cost of living had risen and how the rich were better off at the expense of the poor.

Mr. Peake: I am extremely glad to have that disclaimer from the hon. Member——

Mr. Dodds: There is no disclaimer.

Mr. Peake: —that he was not taken in by the misrepresentation of the "Daily Herald."
As the House knows and as the Amendment I am about to move confirms, it is the intention of the Government, during the lifetime of this Parliament, to go still further in our endeavour to restore the insurance principle, to which we attach such importance. This has been made clear in speeches not only by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself, but also by the Prime Minister. We must, however, face the fact that an increase in benefit and pension rates will require higher contributions. It will also inevitably add to the emerging cost of

the scheme due to the grant of the higher rates of pension both to those who have ceased to contribute and many others who can contribute for only a comparatively short time.
I hope that by now nearly everybody in the country is aware that we have a problem of an ageing population. It was for that reason that we took time by the forelock and appointed the Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Thomas Phillips in July, 1953, with the widest possible terms of reference. The House will also be aware that this is the year of the first quinquennial review of the insurance scheme. It is my duty, under Section 40 of the Act of 1946, to review the rates and amounts of benefit and of course of contribution, when the report of the Government Actuary has been received and laid before Parliament.
During the five years 1946–51, as the leading article in "The Times" this morning demonstrates, the Socialists did little or nothing to repair the damage which their policies had caused to our National Insurance system. They are expressing their contrition and repentance in the Motion which they have now put before the House. Their repentance, like that of other converts, has carried them a very long way. "Challenge to Britain," their latest manifesto, promises not only an immediate restoration of the purchasing power of benefits to the 1946 level, but goes further, and promises an annual review to relate them to the cost of living.
This pledge was supported at Margate last year—in a very heady seaside atmosphere—both by the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West and the right hon. Member for Llanelly. When the right hon. Gentleman winds up this debate for the Opposition, will he explain to us how it comes about that he has been converted from the very definite statement which he made in this House when introducing the Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill on 6th February, 1946?

Mr. J. Griffiths: I shall be glad to, and I propose to.

Mr. Peake: I will read the right hon. Gentleman's words to him, so that he shall be fully reminded of them. He stated:
We are definitely of the vtiew that it is undesirable, as well as impracticable, to have


automatic adjustment. This method of pegging benefits to a specific cost of living and adjusting them automatically was tried at the end of the last war in war pensions, and broke down the first time it came to be applied. We are convinced, after examination, that it will break down again."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1946; Vol. 418, c. 1741.]
I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman will answer that question.

Mr. Griffiths: I shall answer it without waiting to be asked to do so.

Mr. Peake: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He is so forthcoming that perhaps he will answer me a second question. I should also like to know from him whether or not he and his party are prepared to support the increase of contributions necessary to provide the increased benefits for which the Motion asks. In other words, does he or does he not support the contributory basis of the scheme? I think that is a fair question on which the House is entitled to an answer.
There are three reasons—compelling ones, I think——

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: Are we to understand, as a result of what the Minister has just said, that the Government intend that any increase in pension rates which they may make is to be financed entirely from contributions?

Mr. Peake: The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do what is the contributory basis. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] He also knows full well the great alarm and distress caused in trade union circles by the reduction he made in the Exchequer contribution.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question? Are we to understand—this is a very important matter—from the statements that he has made that if any increase in pensions and other benefits is made by this Government, it will or will not be financed entirely from contributions?

Mr. Peake: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the National Insurance scheme is financed by the contributions of three parties—the Exchequer, the workman and the employer. That is the basis of the scheme and those are the three parties to the contributory scheme. The answer is that any increase in benefits must carry with it a corre-

sponding increase in contributions. That is the whole basis of the scheme—that there are actuarial contributions which are divided between the three contributing parties.

Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is within the power of the Government, if they so desire, to alter the proportions of the contributions by the Treasury and the other contributors. That is the first point. The second point is again this question: Are we to understand, from what the right hon. Gentleman has now said, that there will be an equal contribution from all parties, including the Treasury, or no increased contribution from the Treasury at all?

Mr. Peake: The right hon. Gentleman must surely know that the proportions of the various contributions to the Fund have been varied from time to time. He himself cut down the Exchequer contribution to the detriment of the workpeople who contributed. The whole question of what should be the proper proportions will come under review when the Government Actuary's report is made as a result of his quinquennial review.

Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in implying that the cutting down of the Treasury contribution did any damage to the Fund. On the contrary, the increase in the pensions rate, which the right hon. Gentleman did his best to obscure, which we made in 1951, was financed entirely by extra contributions from the Treasury. It cost, as he said, an extra £90 million a year. Once again I ask, will he please answer my question, if he can? Can we know how any increase in the pensions and other benefits is to be financed?

Mr. Peake: I thought I had made it quite clear that the question of what the different proportions of contributions shall be must be settled after we have received the report of the Government Actuary. I must confess I was pleased to see that on this point at any rate, as to the damage done to the Fund by what the right hon. Gentleman did in 1951, I did seem to have the assent of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan).

Mr. Douglas Jay: The right hon. Gentleman said that damage was done to the Fund by the


changes in contributions made in the summer of 1951. Does he not recall that he discussed those changes with me at the time, and when the final arrangements were introduced into this House he gave his approval to them, speaking from the side of the House on which I now sit?

Mr. Peake: Yes, and I have also not forgotten that the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend next to him proposed that the Exchequer contribution to the Fund should be cut down from about £140 million to about £35 million a year and it was my efforts which secured that it was put up again to about £70 million a year.

Mr. Jay: The right hon. Gentleman is really twisting a long way this afternoon. Does he deny that the arrangements made in regard to the Fund in 1951, to which he referred just now as doing great damage, had his explicit approval in this House?

Mr. Peake: I was following very good trade union practice. I objected very strongly to the reductions then made. I made several speeches about that in 1951; but when the right hon. Gentleman offered to make a concession and to restore the Exchequer contribution to the extent of about £30 or £40 million, I was well satisfied with the job of work I had done.
I have been rather diverted from my argument by these questions about contributions, but I was about to say that there are three compelling reasons why hon. Gentlemen should support the Amendment and not the Motion. The Amendment suggests that it would be wise and prudent to await the results of the Government Actuary's review and the report of the Phillips Committee. In the first place, as I hope I have demonstrated, there is no poverty in the country today which cannot be avoided by recourse to National Assistance. I suggest that it is only on the ground of urgent and pressing need that emergency action could reasonably be called for at the present time.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has succeeded in virtually stabilising the cost of living, which has moved less than 3 per cent. since the improvements in insurance

benefits and assistance scales were made two years ago. Things are not, therefore, getting worse for anybody day by day at the present time.
Thirdly, the statutory review of the insurance scheme is now in progress. As well-informed hon. Members are aware, some of the interim reports of the Government Actuary have not appeared for a period of 12 months or more after the close of the year under review. They will be pleased to hear that the Government Actuary has been asked to expedite his review now in progress. I am sure that it will give satisfaction to hon. Members to hear that the report of the Government Actuary and the report of the Phillips Committee, which we eagerly await, will both be available early in the next Session of Parliament, that is to say, in time to enable us to consider what action we shall recommend to Parliament before the end of the year. [HON MEMBERS: "Before the General Election."] It is for those reasons that I urge the House to reject the Motion and to accept the Amendment.
I should like to end—[Interruption.]—if I may be permitted to end, upon a hopeful note. Puzzling, anxious and baffling as is this problem of the large and growing number of elderly people, and the need to make proper provision for them, there are some hopeful signs on the horizon for those who care to look for them. First, the numbers of those on National Assistance have not been increasing so rapidly in the last 18 months as they did in the previous three years. Indeed, there are signs of approaching stability.
Secondly, more and more of those now retiring from employment have earned, by deferred retirement, the higher scales of pension provided by the insurance scheme. More and more people are thereby providing for themselves a standard which makes it unnecessary for them, even if they have no other resources, to have recourse to National Assistance. In the third place, private superannuation schemes for all classes of the population have been spreading rapidly in recent years. Already something like seven million of the working population are covered by them. They, too, will help to make life more tolerable for those who can no longer work.
Lastly, and perhaps most important of all, stabilisation of the currency has led to a renewal of private saving and private insurance.
These are the hopeful features which can be set against some of the gloomy prognostications which are so familiar to us all. It is therefore with satisfaction, but not with complacency, that before I sit down I give this pledge to my hon. Friends. Before many months have passed we shall be able to claim with justice that, in a little over three years of Conservative Government, we shall have made good to the old-age pensioners, the war disabled, the sick and the unemployed the whole of the injury and loss that they suffered in six years of Socialist misrule.
I beg to move to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
while taking note of the action of Her Majesty's Government in 1952 in increasing pensions and National Insurance benefits and of its success in stabilizing the cost of living since that date, pledges its support for further improvements as soon as the current review of all the financial and other problems involved has been completed.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Hubbard: I am quite sure that if the House is convinced of anything it is convinced that the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance has fallen far short of doing justice to the old-age pensioners. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman has convinced the House that he does not understand the problems of the aged people.
I think the right hon. Gentleman has closed his mind completely to those sources from which he could have obtained accurate information about the conditions under which old-age pensioners are living. It would not be wrong of me at this point to remind the right hon. Gentleman of the trouble which the old-age pensioners' associations experienced in 1938 and 1939 in convincing the Government that something should be done to increase the old-age pensions beyond 10s. a week; and to ask him to recall that we had to wait until 1946 before, under a Labour Government, we had a basic pension of 26s a week, and that, for the first time, many old-age pensioners had the stigma of the Poor Law removed from them.
That was the situation which existed during the lifetime of the last Tory Government. I did not expect that today we should be presented with two letters from old-age pensioners, in a country where we have over five million old-age pensioners, in order to prove the case for the Government. I am willing to obtain my information from the old-age pensioners themselves. As President for many years of the Scottish Old-Age Pensioners' Association and vice-president of the British Council of Old-Age Pensioners' Associations, I have come in close contact with old-age pensioners.
I would inform the House that every local authority in Scotland has given wholehearted approval to the Motion on the Order Paper. There is not a trade union in the whole country which is not wholeheartedly behind the Motion. There is not a church organisation which does not support it; indeed, the great bulk of the national newspapers give it their support.
I thought the Minister would at least have approached this matter in the full knowledge of present day circumstances. He has said that National Assistance has been stabilised because of the earnings of old people who continued in work and earned an addition to their pensions for the period in which they continued in employment after reaching the age of retirement. For sheer meanness, I have never, in all my previous experience of public life, come up against the equal of what is happening at present. Old people were induced to carry on working for a number of years after reaching pensionable age for the prize of an additional 3s. a year for every year they worked after the age of 65, in the case of a man, and 60, in the case of a woman.
Many decided to continue working and thus earned the right to a bigger pension. Having worked those additional years many of them ceased work, not voluntarily, but because they were dismissed from their employment. Then, on going for National Assistance, they found that the Assistance Board—about which the right hon. Gentleman said so much today—deducted in full the gratuities they earned by their additional years of work.
It would be very difficult to think of anything more mean than to ask old people to continue in work for a number of years to earn some addition to their


pension only for them to find that when they are forced to apply for National Assistance the whole of the extra sum is deducted.

Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan: Is it not a fact that that has been so ever since the regulations under the National Insurance Act were introduced? Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), who is responsible for that Act, to deal with this question when he addressses the Committee?

Mr. Hubbard: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is able to deal with that question without any inducement from the hon. Member. It is wrong at a time like this, when there is increased longevity, that old people should be asked to continue in work and that when they respond they should be penalised in the way I have outlined. I do not think that any one could justify treatment of that kind.
There are many aspects of National Assistance about which we can always be critical. The most important one is that there is a nasty habit of bringing the regulations before the House for consideration at a date long after there had been an increase in the cost of living. The Minister seems to be able to close his mind to the hard facts. The cost-of-living figures which we have had today are quite unrealistic.
The National Federation of Old-Age Pensions Associations has met in conference with local authorities, trade unions, church organisations and other bodies. We have had submitted to us the difficulties which confront pensioners day by day. It has been pointed out to the Minister by deputations from the organisations that the cost-of-living index is in no way related to the type of life which old people have to live. The index takes into account articles which are not likely to be purchased by pensioners.
It is of no interest to pensioners that the cost of motor cars, television sets, expensive jewellery or brandy has come down. It is of no interest to them that the cost of many other goods has come down when they cannot hope to be able to afford them. It is almost dishonest to suggest that the index figures quoted by the Minister have any relation to the problems of the old people.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is not it dishonest to suggest that the articles which the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned enter into the cost-of-living index?

Mr. Hubbard: It is not dishonest.

Mr. Powell: It is wrong.

Mr. Hubbard: No.

Mr. Powell: Wireless sets—motor cars?

Mr. Hubbard: I was talking about what it costs people to live. The index does not include only the things which pensioners deem to be necessary, such as food, shelter and heating. I was about to say that if we were realistic we should face the fact that—to take only the increase in the price of coal, apart from anything else—the pensioners are sitting in their houses in the cold throughout the winter. By the very nature of their disability, because of their old age, many of these people cannot go out and about. They are compelled to sit at home. They are probably the only people who have to spend most of their life indoors, but they cannot afford to buy coal. Where is the relation between the figures the Minister gave today and the cost of coal two or three years ago?
The staple foods, the filler foods upon which old people depend, have gone up in price more than is shown in the cost-of-living index. Meat and bacon have gone up in price. Many other commodities have gone up in price by a figure far in excess of that shown in the index, and the shoddy thing about it all is that the Minister knows of it. He has given information to the House and he knows full well that it does not apply to the standard of life which the pensioners enjoy.
I give the Minister credit for the fact that he has listened carefully to what has been said by the many deputations from the Federation. We submitted figures. He has had time to consider them. He has admitted the strength of our arguments, but has always pointed out the difficulties he has in getting the necessary money. I do not want to pursue that point other than to say that the day will come, and it is not far distant, when the right hon. Gentleman will regret the speech he made today.
The old people are not asking for charity. They are the people who have made our country what it is. They are the people responsible for the productive capacity of our country. They are asking for something which they have earned. They do not want to be kept close to a starvation level. The day must come very soon now when pensioners must be taken away from the scheme of National Insurance.
Nobody will convince me that the pensioner who is permanently incapacitated because of age is not in the same position as somebody who is off work temporarily because of sickness or unemployment. The pensioner is in exactly the same position as the man who is incapacitated as result of industrial injury. He is unable to earn his livelihood in gainful occupation. His incapacity has come about because of age, but there is nothing dishonourable in growing old. If there is then we are all very dishonourable Gentlemen in this House and not honourable Gentlemen.
There is no reason why people who are permanently prevented from earning their livelihood in gainful occupation should be treated any differently from those who are injured in industry or war. We must face that position sooner or later. It may be said that this will cost money and that the increased longevity of the people has created a problem, but this is what Governments are for. It is their job to solve these problems; it is not for the pensioners. They cannot do it. They can only make dear what their problems are. It is the responsibility of the House and of the Government to see that a solution is found. One would expect that if an additional contribution is necessary to increase the pension it would have to come from employers and from the Treasury, but I suggest that nobody engaged in industry should, or would, object to an increased contribution.
Many workers envy those who enjoy the benefits of superannuation schemes. Many trade unions are most anxious to become partners in superannuation schemes. That is right and proper. It is along these lines that the real solution to the problem is to be found. I suggest that those who would be asked to pay increased contributions in order to

guarantee an adequate pension—and we cannot fix the figure today—would not be making a contribution to the pensioners of today but they would be insuring themselves against their own retirement. That would be the right and proper thing to do, and it has been found to be practicable in other countries. I see no reason why it should not be practicable here.
A member of my family enjoyed the advantage of a superannuation scheme for which he paid 1s. 3d. in the £ from his earnings. He also had to pay the full National Insurance contribution. Had the sum being paid for superannuation purposes been paid into a national scheme, along with the contributions of other people, it would have provided all the benefits that could be got from an ordinary superannuation scheme. By that means it would be possible to provide for payment during periods of sickness and an adequate pension on retirement.
We have to meet the problem of our ageing population. The hope has been expressed in the House on many occasions that work should be provided for old people who are able and willing to do it. I have suggested that it might not be practicable for old people to work a whole day of eight hours or even seven hours and that, as a practical approach to the fading-off period in the working life of old people, the Minister of Labour ought to provide part-time work whereby two old-age pensioners might between them do a full day's work in industry. Nothing has developed from my suggestion. On the contrary, the opposite sort of thing has happened. Employers pay off the oldest people when it is necessary to dispense with employees.
Because of the Government's refusal to face up to the difficulties confronting the old-age pensioners the hospitals are fuller of old-age pensioners than they have ever been, and an old-age pensioner in hospital costs four times as much to keep as he does when he is at home. Also—it is disgraceful—ever-increasing numbers of old-age pensioners are being sent to mental homes, something which no one can justify. Apart from the fact that this takes beds which ought to be occupied by curable cases, it is a very expensive way of meeting the problem.
Old people ought to remain in their own homes as long as they possibly can, but it is an absolute impossibility for old people to retain their health if they cannot be kept in warmth. We have abundant evidence that because of their inability to buy coal they are suffering from colds, bronchitis, and other ailments.
I was interested in the reference made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) to the conference now being held in London. It seems that another fallacy has been exploded. Experiments carried out in Germany prove conclusively that old people who are properly fed are much healthier than those who are underfed. It is found that old people respond very greatly to a higher intake of calories. These experiments have proved conclusively that old people degenerate if they do not get enough food. It must be obvious that if old-age pensioners are kept on the poverty line it reduces their energy and their resistance to disease, and so forces them into hospitals and institutions.
It appears that the main thing standing between the two sides of the Committee is the question of time. For the old-age pensioners time is, indeed, the essence of the contract. I see no reason whatever, certainly no constitutional reason, why the Government cannot do something now as a temporary measure pending the quinquennial review. Why cannot they give some immediate benefit to the old people? Every local authority in the country is demanding that something shall be done immediately for the old-age pensioners. That is what the trade unions are demanding. All decent people in the country are demanding it. If the policy is to "live horse and you will get grass," it should be remembered that sometimes the horse does not live long enough to get the grass.
With the good will of the Government, something could be done for the old-age pensioners next week. If the Government fail in this matter they will have something to answer for to all decent-thinking people in the country.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. James Ramsden: I believe that it is not the custom in this House for an hon. Member who is making a maiden speech to refer to the

previous speaker in the sense of commenting at length on what he said, but I should like to break that custom in this case just to say that I am sure the House is glad that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard), about whose illness we read with regret last night, has so far recovered as to be able to make a speech here today.
I know that the House is usually indulgent to hon. Members who are called upon to speak here for the first time. I hope that it will be kind to me, and I shall try not to abuse that kindness by venturing on to ground which is too controversial. Perhaps I might at this point say that the unaccustomed air of courteous attention which I have noticed on this and similar occasions, for which I am very grateful, does not dispel so much as increase one's natural diffidence.
I suppose it has happened to many hon. Members that when they were elected their interests became attracted to one or more special topics. Mine has been drawn to the important subject of old-age pensions, which is our concern today. I am fortunate in representing a constituency which includes Harrogate and Knaresborough and lies within striking distance of the industrial part of the West Riding and is handy and central for wide districts of the Yorkshire countryside. Because of the natural beauty and amenities of the area it is natural that many old people should go to live there in their retirement. My constituency probably has a slightly higher proportion of elderly people than some other parts of the country have.
It is certainly not true, as some people think, even some people in Yorkshire, that mainly well-to-do people live in Harrogate. It is true that we have a most efficient tourist industry there, that Harrogate is a "conference town," and that we are always pleased when people go there with money in their pockets and the will to spend it. However, as regards our permanent town dwellers, we have a representative cross-section of the community with, as I have said, a high proportion of elderly people. Hence, in part, my special interest in this topic.
I am glad to be called to speak now for another reason, and that is because I am following in this debate so soon after my right hon. Friend the Minister, who is a fellow Yorkshireman. I was


going to say that I do not believe that the Motion which has been put down by the Opposition was intended as in any sense representing personal censure of his conduct of his office. After his rather lively passage, in the interests of noncontroversiality, perhaps I had better not say that but may I say instead that I am sure that the performance of my right hon. Friend has in no way lessened, but has, rather, increased, the confidence which we on this side of the House, feel in his administration.
I think there will be general agreement that the case for an increase in the basic pension rate has been proved, but I should like to mention the facts which have weighed with me in coming to this conclusion. We often approach this problem in terms of the cost of living. As all speeches are not maiden speeches, very naturally, perhaps, as the cost of living is in a sense political dynamite, this discussion is apt to get side-tracked into a comparison of the performances of successive Governments. It is certainly contentious ground, and I should prefer to steer clear of it, as far as I can, this afternoon, and to approach the matter from another point of view.
Whatever is said about the cost of living, I think there will be no dispute that, since the pensioners received their last increase, the standard of living for most people other than pensioners has improved. This improvement has been due to the fact that there has been a considerable rise in earnings, but the pensioner, of course, by definition, is one who has stopped earning, whose earnings are, anyhow, kept within the limits of a statutory rule and who is, therefore, excluded from sharing in this improvement.
I recall some passages in pages 18 to 20 of the Economic Survey, which, I think, are relevant and support this contention. Most of the statements contained in those pages are relevant to what I am arguing, but I notice particularly the sentence stating that personal consumption in the year under review amounted to about three-fifths of the total increase in home demand. The pensioners have had no direct share—and I say direct because my right hon. Friend mentioned the case of a pensioner who lives at home and might benefit from the increased earnings of those who live with him—in

this increase during a year which brought an improvement in the position of most other people, but saw none in the case of the pensioners. In fact, their position has relatively worsened, and this is what seems to me to prove the case for an increase. I think that this is admitted, and, since my right hon. Friend has given us this afternoon the assurance for which we had all hoped about the Government's intentions in the matter, there is only one outstanding question, and that is the timing of the increase.
I had better make an admission to the House. At the time of the Budget statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I regretted that he had not been able to do anything for the pensioners, and I said so. When I was asked, as hon. Members are asked from time to time, to write an article about the Budget, I said so in that article. What I advocated was what hon. Members opposite are, in fact, advocating today—an interim measure of relief. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs used those words, and spoke of an interim measure of relief to be given before the Government find themselves in a position to consider and to act upon the statutory quinquennial review of the whole position.
When I heard my right hon. Friend reply to the Budget debate, I must say that I was convinced that, in the whole of the circumstances, it would not be in the best interests of the pensioners to take precipitate and piecemeal action before the Government had had the opportunity to consider the actuary's report, and, in that belief, I shall certainly support the Amendment. I must say that I had the impression, at the time of my right hon. Friend's winding-up speech, that he had managed to convince at least some hon. Gentlemen opposite that this was a fair and reasonable course, but I may be wrong. At any rate, if I had not been convinced by the winding-up speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, I should certainly have been convinced since by no less an authority than the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill), who, I am sorry to say, is not in her place.
I studied with care the last part of her speech on the Second Reading of the National Insurance Act, 1951, in which the right hon. Lady was dealing with the administrative difficulties inherent in any


change in pensions rates. She enlarged upon the size of these difficulties, and used the word "formidable" to describe them. It seemed to me, on reading her speech, that a convincing case was made out for saying that the administrative difficulties in the way of an interim adjustment, to be followed, as it would probably have to be, by further Government action on consideration of the report, would indeed be almost insuperable.
I should now like to go back, if I may, to what I said a little earlier about conditions in the last two years, in which the pensioners have become worse off in relation to the rest of the community. I believe—and this is a further argument for not interfering with the statutory machinery of review—that this state of affairs may well recur in the future. The policy of full employment has our support on both sides of the House. We have some years' experience now of what happens in our economy when there is full employment. We can assume with some certainty that the improved standard of life which we all hope for in this country is more likely to come about from an increase of earnings in relation to prices than from any sudden fall in the cost of living, as such. I believe that to be, at any rate, a workable assumption, and, if it is so, the problem of ensuring for the old-age pensioners their fair and just share in a rising standard is bound to recur.
The question I should like the House to consider, with the future in mind, is whether the present statutory arrangements for a periodical review of rates are the best possible in the circumstances to deal with the problem of pensions in a society in which we have, and hope to keep, full employment. My own view is that it meets the case reasonably well, though I feel that in certain circumstances the Minister might well have to use the machinery of review at the end of four years instead of five, which is, I believe, provided for under the terms of the Act.
Between one review and the next there may well be periods—I believe that the present is one of them—when basic rates will, in many cases, be inadequate. It is then that the function of National Assistance is to come in, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) has aptly expressed it, to catch or

to cushion any of those who fall through the net of National Insurance. It cannot be too often said that it is just as much the will of Parliament that those in need should have National Assistance when they require it as that they should have the basic pension. I know that it is being administered in that spirit, and quite right, too.
There are good grounds for hope that recourse to National Assistance will be less in the future than it has been during the current period of difficulty; and this we should all wish to see. For one thing, people are tending to stay longer at work, and are thus coming into retirement with an incremented pension. I hope and believe that this trend will continue. From my own small experience in business, I would say that a good proportion of those who elect to retire when they reach pension age do so because they feel that they cannot carry on, for reasons of health or physical incapacity. This proportion may well get smaller as health standards improve and as progressive mechanisation and modernisation reduce the amount of heavy work which falls to be done in industry.
On the question of retirement, there is one other aspect which many of us encounter in connection with industry and business. When there was considerable unemployment, many firms had a rule, in fairness to their younger employees, that retirement should be compulsory at a certain age. I do not think that there is much need for such a provision now or in the forseeable future; in fact, we should like to see developments in a contrary direction. Many firms have abolished this age limit and I believe that more should follow their lead. It would be interesting and helpful to hear from either my right hon. Friend or any hon. Member opposite what is the trade unions' view on this question of the age of retirement.
While on the subject of industry, there is another matter which it might be helpful to mention in connection with the problem of pensions. Since the war there has been an enormous growth in the number of private pensions schemes. I myself am trustee for two small ones. The long standing schemes are already paying out quite substantial benefits, but the younger or newer ones, which, I suppose, are in the majority, will as the years go on add more and more to the


resources which men and women will have at their disposal when they retire from industry.
In conclusion, I wish to refer to a point made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in a recent debate and which, I feel, should always be in the forefront of our minds when we are discussing the financial problems of the elderly. Very many old people need help and care of a kind which is not purely financial and which does not, therefore, fall within the framework of legislation. There is a wide field here for the work of local authorities and particularly of voluntary associations.
I should like to pay tribute to the devotion and efficiency with which work of that kind is actively conducted in my constituency by all those who make it their concern, as we do, on all sides of the House, that those who have grown old in the service of their country should be able to live during their retirement as their efforts have deserved.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: The House has listened to a maiden speech of very high quality indeed. It is a great day in the life of any man when he is elected to this House. It is another great day when he is called to make his first speech, and the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) may well feel that he has acquitted himself with distinction. The humour and modesty of the hon. Gentleman will have pleased the House, for he will soon find that this is a very human place, and we like all newcomers to be modest. Some of us remain modest for a long time, and others have modesty thrust upon them.
The hon. Member has paid the House the tribute of preparing well the speech which he has delivered. It augers well for the contribution which he will make in future debates. I hope we shall hear much more of that understanding sympathy which he clearly has for the problems of the people whom he represents. I was glad that a maiden speaker had the privilege of saying a word of welcome to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard), who was taken ill last night, and I associate myself with those remarks.
Having said those few kind words, I now turn my attention to the Treasury

Bench. The right hon. Gentleman, who has had to leave, this afternoon read to the House some letters, the only purpose of which could be to argue that everything in the garden was lovely and that there was no urgency about the problem of increasing the pensions of our old folk. His general tenor seemed to be that the old folk are better off today than ever they were and that they are having more calories. These "calories" keep cropping up. If the Minister would talk to old age pensioners, he would find that they have increasing difficulty in getting the necessities of life alone.
Since early in March there has been on the Order Paper a Motion in the name of the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), asking for attention to be paid to the needs of the old folk. Week after week, when the business of the House has been announced one or other of us on this side has asked the Leader of the House whether he would give time to discuss the old-age pensions question, but we have been thrust aside. We were driven to discuss even Members' salaries before we discussed old-age pensions. We have asked since March for the Government to give time to consider the question of the old folk, and we are only considering it now because the Opposition, and not the Government, have given a day of their time for the purpose.
The old-age pension problem has, I believe, reached the proportions of a national scandal. The Minister, in the concluding words of his speech, indicated that it will be six months before anything is given to the pensioners. He expects to have the report about the time we return from the Summer Recess namely, the end of October or the beginning of November, and he stated that we should have time between then and the end of the year to consider what we can do for the old folk. The luxury of another six months means that the misery of poverty in which the pensioners find themselves today is to be endured when it could be ended tomorrow if the Government were so minded.
In 1946, the pension represented 21 per cent. of the average wage paid in industry, and last November the Minister told me that the old-age pension then represented 17 per cent. I presume it is about 16 per cent. today on the average wage


paid. But that is not all. The Government have deliberately increased in price the very things on which the pensioner spends most of his money. By their abolition of the food subsidies the Government have hit the pensioner in the stomach. The Minister admitted to the delegation from the National Federation of Old Age Pensions Associations that the cost of food had increased by 65 per cent. since the last increase, and that statement has been repeated. I repeated it on the Floor of the House to the Minister and he did not challenge my figures.
The Interim Index of Retail Prices, which purports to give a cost-of-living index, includes 250 items, two-thirds of which have nothing to do with food. Since the Government came into power the pensioners have been pushed to the back of the queue. The morality of the Welfare State has been undermined. Its basis was that the strong should help the weak and the rich should help the poor. By the abolition of food subsidies an end was put to that, because the pensioner, the unemployed, the sick and the widow now have to bear with the millionaire the increased cost of living, while those included in the tax paying group have benefited from the £335 million in Income Tax and Surtax reductions given by the Chancellor in recent years.
The overriding obsession of the Chancellor to reduce Income Tax and Surtax has, I fear, blinded him to the grim poverty of the old folk. They ought to be the honoured guests of the nation. Instead, they are being treated as inconvenient poor relations. The Government ought to have an uneasy conscience on this question for, despite the argument between my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) and the Minister about the reduced Government contribution to the National Insurance Fund, this much is clear, that the Government have saved £204 million which ought to have been paid into the National Insurance Fund but which was not because of the steps taken during 1951. This means that the Government's contribution has been reduced from 22 per cent. to 14 per cent. and the working man's contribution to the Fund has been increased from 40 per cent. to 44 per cent.
The whole burden of the Government's case appears to be that whatever is done

must be actuarially acceptable. A scheme must not be put forward which would get into debt. I believe that we are allowing this problem of the arithmetic of the scheme to blind us to our moral obligations. Our priorities are wrong. This should be a case of "Can we afford to give it to the old folk today rather than next January?" If anything is to wait let it be something else. This is a case of life and death for the old people. Whatever else we cannot afford we must afford a square deal and an honourable existence for those who have laboured long to make this country what it is.
I suggest that there should be an entirely new approach to the problem. Today, of the National Insurance contribution by the workers, about 2s. 6d. goes towards old-age pensions. Nearly half of the working man's contribution every week is to provide for the old people. I agree with my right hon. Friend, who opened this debate this afternoon in what I think was a very useful and commendable speech, if I may say so without patronage, that the people must accept responsibility for their own poor.
But we do not need to lecture the working classes about looking after the old folk. It is regarded as a matter of honour among the people from whom we spring that as far as lies in our power we should care for our mothers and fathers and for our grandparents. It is not always possible for people to be able to bear that burden but it is a great privilege, which we should not underestimate. It is a privilege more than words can tell for me to have my own mother with me, and I appreciate it, but what if I could not afford to maintain her along with my other obligations. I believe that every citizen ought to bear the burden according to his ability.
One hon. Member opposite made a speech during the last debate which we had on pensions, in which he said that he did not think it right to give pensions to people regardless of their position, that some people might not need them. But is it right to take from people contributions regardless of their position? Why let a man with £5 a week pay exactly the same contribution as the man who is earning £39 a week?
I am not speaking for my right hon. Friend now, but entirely for myself, when I say that we ought to treat the


question of old-age pensioners as we do the Health Service and let payment come out of taxation. Let the strong help the weak and the rich the poor. Let people pay accordingly to their ability, but see that nobody who can afford to pay will be able to "dodge the column." Some of us may have to pay much more than the 7s. 5d. a week which we are paying now.
There is nothing sacrosanct about the National Insurance Scheme. It must be moulded to suit our experience as we learn more of the needs of our people. I recently asked the Minister what it would cost to give a pension of £2 10s. a week to our old folk and pay for it out of taxation. The reply I got was that he would save £35 million from the Government's contribution to National Insurance, and £30 million from National Assistance, but he would have to pay out £560 million rising to £1,080 million in 25 years' time. If there is anything that irritates an old person it is to talk to him about what is likely to happen in 25 years' time. We know that we shall be lucky if we are here to be pensionable in 25 years' time.
To deny justice today because there will be a social problem in a quarter of a century's time cannot be defended. I believe that it is cruel. In any case, the wisest man among us does not know what our economic position will be in 25 years' time. By 1960, we shall have atomic power on the industrial front and we may be able to have people retiring much earlier and to maintain them.
We had a debate recently on our own salaries. We were made to parade our poverty, to the delight of a good many people, and I feel very sore about it. They played with us, and they are doing exactly the same thing with the old-age pensioners. By making them wait for this increase they are smacking the old people where it hurts them most. The Commons was treated with contempt. It is, of course, part of the philosophy of the party opposite to teach working people their place by making them wait. It has been the lesson all through our political and industrial history. Decent opinion—decent opinion in all circles—is ashamed that this House, the custodian of the social conscience of the nation, can be indifferent to the cries that come to it at the present time.
This afternoon I had a telegram from ex-Service men in Cardiff. In the first part they suggest—wrongly—that the Government Amendment is out of order. The telegram continues:
In so far as war disability and widows' pensions are concerned all facts, figures known. Admitted by the Minister and Chancellor. No further committee or inquiries necessary. Protest at delay tactics. Signed, Bond, B.L.E.S.M.A. Cardiff.
I hope that even at this late hour the Government will say that they have changed their mind. It is wrong for us to go away on holiday next week and to leave the old folk to stew in their own juice.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: I support the Motion. Any doubts that I had were dissipated by what I regard as a most unfortunate speech by the Minister. When I read the Motion and the Amendment, I thought that the only conflict between the two sides of the House was in regard to timing—whether an improvement in pensions should be made immediately or whether it would not be better to wait until full statistical information was available. It came as a great surprise, indeed as a profound shock, to hear the Minister devote the first part of his speech to an attempt to prove that there was really nothing wrong today with the position of the old-age pensioner, and to devote the second part arguing that if, which was not admitted, there is anything wrong, then both sides of the House must take the blame.
The old-age pensioners are not particularly interested in attaching blame. What they are interested in is a genuine attempt to alleviate immediately the condition in which they find themselves. When I approached this debate, anticipating that the difference between the two sides was simply one of timing, I was reminded of the observations of a Conservative speaker in a recent official political broadcast who used the words:
We know that many of the old people are still having a hard time.
The Minister did not seem to concede that:
The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of National Insurance have both said that they want to help. I personally believe that something will be done before long.
In the debate on 19th March the Joint Parliamentary-Secretary voiced the same


sentiments. What he said on that occasion was not that nothing needed to be done. He said:
It is indeed our aim that, should the finances and the economics of the country permit, the level of benefits and pensions should be restored without delay to the level which they had when the National Insurance scheme was introduced."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 816.]
I want to give one or two figures to illustrate the real plight of the old-age pensioners today and to demonstrate quite clearly, as I hope, that since 1946 there has been a steady deterioration in their position. Something has been said to the effect that there has been some reduction in the numbers turning to National Assistance. It would be as well if we got the exact position perfectly clear. It is, that every year since 1946 there has been a steady and substantial increase in the number of old-age pensioners who have to resort to National Assistance. That is the plain fact.
Another fact is that there is a very large number who actually need National Assistance but who, because of personal pride, do not seek it. In 1952, 67,749 more pensioners turned to National Assistance than in the previous year. In 1953 the increase was 94,957. In 1954, it is true, the figure was less but it was still higher than in 1952, namely, 79,104. That quite clearly illustrates that there is a steady worsening in the position of the old-age pensioners.
In a very interesting maiden speech the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) made a further point which is illustrated by the statistics which I have. Looking at this problem not only from the absolute point of view but as compared with the rest of the population, the position of the old-age pensioner has steadily worsened. In 1951, out of the total number of persons turning to National Assistance the percentage who were contributory old-age pensioners was 50·2—slightly more than half the total number. In 1954 that had increased from 50·2 to 53·1 per cent., illustrating quite clearly that, while the overall demands on National Assistance have tended to decrease, the percentage of contributory pensioners having to turn to that additional source of income has been increasing from year to year.
The whole basis of the National Insurance scheme, as I understood it when

it was introduced, was that the rate paid as of right should provide basic subsistence. From the steady increase year after year in the numbers having to turn to National Assistance, it is quite clear that we have got further and further from that conception. I am sorry to weary the House with so many figures, but I think that they illustrate my argument far better than words can.
In 1946 the rates of contributory pensions, single and double, were 26s. and 42s. per week. In every year since then the purchasing power of the pension paid has gone down. The pension increases which have been made have nothing like made up for the depreciation in the purchasing power of the £, and that is why it is ridiculous to talk, as the Government do in their Amendment, of "further improvement." There has been no improvement since 1946 in the purchasing power of the contributory pension. Let me give the figures.
As I say, in 1946 the pension was 26s. and 42s. respectively. To bring that pension up to present purchasing power levels, it should be 38s. and 62s. respectively, as compared with the actual pension of 32s. 6d. and 54s. I should have thought that if the Minister wanted a proper yardstick with which to measure any immediate increases which should be made, those figures provide him with that yardstick. We are waiting for statistics and for the Phillips Committee's Report; we are waiting for all sorts of information before further adjustments are made. But I can see no reason why forthwith the contributory pension for old-age pensioners should not be increased so as to provide them with the purchasing power they had in 1946.
Since 1946 there have been two increases in pensions, but they have not brought about any improvement on the 1946 position, and if anyone thinks that these so-called improvements have helped to solve the problem, let me give these figures. In 1951 we had an increase to 30s. and 50s. If 30s. and 50s. were appropriate in 1951, the present rates should be 33s. 6d. and 56s. as compared with the actual rates of 32s. 6d. and 54s. In 1952 we had an increase to 32s. 6d. and 54s. If those figures were right in 1952, then even on that basis the present-day pension should be 33s. 6d. and 55s. 6d.
But what I wish to pray in aid is the comparison between the purchasing power of the pension in 1946 and the pension which should be paid today to maintain that same purchasing power—namely, 26s. and 42s., on the one hand, and 38s. and 62s. on the other. Is there any reason why the purchasing power of the contributory pension should not be increased to its 1946 level?
Actually, in one sense, the purchasing power argument is favourable to the person who is not advocating an increase, because the plight of the old-age pensioner is even worse than looking at the matter from a purely statistical point of view suggests. It is worse because, as has already been stated, the two matters in which the old-age pensioner is particularly interested are food and warmth, and the cost of obtaining food and warmth has substantially increased in recent years.

Mr. G. Thomas: And rents.

Mr. Bowen: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) reminds me that rents have increased also. As for food, the Government have saved millions from their policy relating to food subsidies. One of the strongest arguments in favour of cutting the food subsidies is that they benefited the community indiscriminately. That was art argument which appealed to me, but if that argument has any real validity, any money saved by the Government through the process of cutting food subsidies should be directed towards alleviating the position of the old-age pensioner.
The increases in the price of coal hit the old-age pensioner far more severely than they hit the rest of the community. For one thing, they are usually in greater need of coal. In addition, they cannot buy large quantities in the summer when prices should be lower. They have to buy their coal in small quantities at a time, which is not the most economical way of buying coal. Other articles taken into account when assessing the purchasing power of the £ are articles which do not enter into the normal budget of the old-age pensioners.
I suggest to the Minister that the case for alleviating their position without delay is unanswerable. It may be said that we must take into account the national economy or, to use the phrase of

the Parliamentary Secretary, "the finances and the economics of the country." In view of that, it is a little surprising that so far we have seen no member of the Treasury Bench present. I do not want in any way to talk glibly about voting millions to this or to that. That would be a wholly irresponsible attitude. But in approaching this problem, we might remind ourselves of a few basic figures in relation to our national economy.
We are dealing with a country with a gross national income of £14,719 million. We have just dealt with a budget of £4,537 million in which £1,555 million is devoted to defence and £1,237 million to the social services. In deciding whether we can spend £100 million or £150 million in increasing supplementary pensions, I think we should approach the matter with those other figures in mind. Something has already been said—and I do not want to pursue the matter—about increasing insurance contributions. I am certainly not against the healthy working section of the community, the young and the middle-aged, making a contribution towards an increase in old-age pensions. I believe that all sections of the working people in this country are prepared to bear a proper share of the burden in order to put old-age pensioners into a position to meet their responsibilities in life in a way that we would all like.
As one who has tried to take some interest in the problem of the care of the aged, I feel that everything conceivable should be done to make it easier for the ageing members of society to look after themselves or to be looked after by their own families. However good our institutions may be, however well run our homes for the aged are, from a human angle, quite apart from the financial angle, they are a poor substitute for a person looking after himself or being looked after by his own family.
The financial aspect has already been dealt with. We are told that the cost of maintaining a person in a home is four times as much as the pension payable to him. But I should like to emphasise that if we are to encourage old people to look after themselves and if we are to encourage their families to look after them, one of the best ways of doing that is to see that they get adequate old-age pensions. Quite apart from the human


aspect, it would be sound finance to remove from old-age pensioners the worries and anxieties which spring very largely from their weekly budgetary problems.
The case for increasing contributory pensions is unanswerable, and we have quite a simple and straightforward yardstick for increasing them now. We cannot blame the old-age pensioner for being sceptical when the Government say, "We are waiting for reports, and we shall consider your position sympathetically when those reports have been received." There is a psychological besides a purely economic aspect of this matter, and today, rightly or wrongly—and it does not matter a great deal whether it is rightly or wrongly—the ageing section of our society is feeling bitter. It feels that it has been forgotten.
Nothing will do more to improve the position than prompt action by the Government. I urge the Minister to consider whether he could not do something now. It may be that he will have to make further adjustments when all these reports have come into his possession, but if he were to take immediate action he would be answering a call which has a sound statistical basis, and which certainly has a human appeal which is difficult to resist.

6.11 p.m.

Sir Austin Hudson: I shall follow the example of the right hon. Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) in two respects. I shall be brief and, I hope, non-controversial. As the first speaker from this side of the House since my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) made his admirable maiden speech, I should like to say that we should endorse the words spoken by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas). I could not have put them better myself, and I am only a quarter Welsh, whereas he is wholly Welsh.
What the old people really want from this debate is to know what they are going to get added to their basic pension, and when they are going to get it. Having listened to the whole debate, I have come to the conclusion that there is really not very much difference of opinion between the two sides of the House. The object of both is to restore all National Insur-

ance benefits to the purchasing power which they commanded when the National Insurance scheme was introduced. That was stated in "Challenge to Britain," and it is very similar to what my hon. Friend said at the end of his speech. In other words, the object is to put these basic pensions back, as soon as possible, to what was then called "subsistence level." The difference of opinion lies in the timing.
My right hon. Friend caused a certain amount of controversy in the House by proving that old-age pensioners were not in such dire need as some people had tried to make out. He did not say that, because of that fact, the basic pension was high enough. He was trying to show that National Assistance, which has been in existence under both Governments, has prevented old-age pensioners from being in great need. He did not say that that situation should continue, but he said that National Assistance was doing the job for which it was invented.
My plea is that in the short time we have to wait before these reports are received, National Assistance should be allowed to continue to do that job, rather than being displaced by an interim rise in the basic pension, which might have to be altered again when these reports—especially the Actuary's report—have been studied. The Phillips report will be available, and we hear that it will shortly be received. It was the party opposite which decided that the Actuary should examine these schemes every five years and surely, when we know that we shall get the relevant figures at the end of the year, we ought to wait until then before we alter the figure.
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard) said that trade unions were 100 per cent. behind the Motion rather than the Amendment, but I understand that they would like to have a proper actuarial report before they decide what is the correct line to take in the future in regard to these insurance schemes.

Mr. Shurmer: On what authority does the hon. Member say that?

Sir A. Hudson: It has been mentioned in the newspapers. It does not seem to be extraordinary that we should have all the necessary information before passing legislation to go forward with these great schemes for another five years.
My concern is not with the amount which old-age pensioners should receive, but the manner in which they should receive it. One hon. Member chided us because, he said, the necessary legislation looked like being brought forward immediately before the next General Election. Surely that would be a good thing. I do not believe that old-age pensioners want their case to be made a party issue at an Election. If we all agreed to raise the basic pension so that it had the purchasing power of the 1946 pension, the necessary legislation would be passed by both sides of the House, and it would not be a matter of controversy at the next Election. After hearing the reception given to my right hon. Friend when he was speaking, I shudder at the thought of fighting a General Election in those circumstances, and it would be an extremely bad thing for the old-age pensioners themselves.
I want to say only one word about war pensions. I understand that they will be considered at the same time as other pensions, although they are granted upon a different basis. They are not granted upon an insurance basis, and nobody proposed that they should be. I want the scheme to continue to be as flexible as possible. When my local branch of the British Legion wrote to me asking whether I was prepared to vote in favour of putting up the basic figure for war pensions to some rather large sum, I said that I was not prepared to do so if it could be avoided. I wanted any money available to be spent upon those who really needed it, rather than upon a basic pension of a figure which might be higher than was necessary in the case of someone who was not in need.
Reverting to the case of the old-age pensioners, I should like to refer to something which I said in a Friday debate last March, namely, that we must consider more flexibility in dealing with the old people. The real trouble is that we have failed in our attempt to persuade people that National Assistance is not Poor Law relief. I shall call in aid in support of that statement something which was said by the right hon. Lady herself in May, 1951. She then said:
I want people to regard Assistance as part of the pattern of our social services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 1995.]

I entirely and absolutely agree, but we have failed; there is no doubt about that. Hon. Members today have said that the trouble is that the people will not go to the National Assistance Board. For instance, I have heard people say, as they have said today in the House, that it is a disgraceful thing that so many old-age pensioners have to apply for National Assistance. In my view, it is not a disgraceful thing; it is a thoroughly undesirable thing, and both sides of the House are determined to put an end to it. I hope that in the interval all of us on both sides will do our best to show these people that they are not drawing Poor Law relief, and that we have set up the National Assistance Board for the very purpose of giving help to those people whose circumstances are such that they are reduced to poverty and distress.
In that Friday debate I said that I did not believe that the basic pension would be enough for all old people and that I wanted to see an old people's department set up by the National Assistance Board and all the branches of the Board, because there are so many different needs and circumstances vary so widely that every case must be considered on its merits. If we can get it into the minds of the old people—for instance, those who are almost bedridden and have no one to look after them—that their local branch of the National Assistance Board exists to look after them, we shall help them enormously and remove some of the trouble about the correct figure for the basic pension. We cannot do that unless we get it into people's minds that there is nothing shameful at all about the National Assistance Board, which was set up by general agreement between all parties in this House in order to assist those in need.
I support the Amendment because I think it is necessary to get all the information we can. The old people will know that the reports are coming in at the end of this year and an undertaking, as near a pledge as can be, has been given by the Minister that the legislation on this subject will be the first in the next Session. I hope we shall keep this matter out of party politics. We have usually kept pensions out of party controversy, and I hope we shall continue to do so, and that the old people will benefit thereby.

6.23 p.m.

Miss Elaine Burton: The strength of this House is seen at its greatest when the House shows itself in the closest contact with the people. Listening to the Minister today, I felt—and I am not trying to be offensive—that was not the case today. Certainly it was not the case with the Minister. If I had been an old-age pensioner listening to the Minister, an icy blast would have gone right through me and all around me. I could not see, even when he had finished, that he thought there was any need for an increase of pensions at all. It seemed to me that he felt that the old people were doing better than they had ever done before.
He read two letters: letters from two people who are satisfied. A point I want to emphasise is this, that if this Government had moved their Amendment when the question of old-age pensions was raised some two years ago, they would have had some justification for saying, "Let us wait for the results of some reports and inquiries in two or three months' time." But we on this side of the House for two years past have been busy telling the Minister and hon. Members opposite that the old people just cannot afford the necessities of life. So it is not a question which has suddenly arisen.
All along, without exception, whether at Question time or in debate, the Minister has told us in effect that what we have been suggesting is not necessary, that the plight of the old people as we picture it is not accurately drawn. And nothing at all has been done about it. It would be quite unfair if the Government today were able to get away with it in the country—to get away with it not having done anything. Many of us over the past two years have raised these questions, and I should like the House to consider the attitude of the Government towards this matter ever since they came to power.
I am sorry if this leads us into party politics, but I feel very strongly about it, and, as I say, I do not see why the Government should get away with it. During the past two years the Minister and those Members opposite who support him have been acting according to the motto coined by the Minister of Works recently, "Treat 'em mean and keep 'em keen."

I do not know whether they have kept them keen, but the party opposite has treated the old people shabbily. It has treated them meanly.
I do not propose to weary the House with many quotations from the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I have with me a large number of quotations of what the Minister has said at different times during the past year or so that illustrate the Tory attitude towards these matters. In March, 1953, I asked whether the old people were in a position to buy the food and light and heat they needed, and the reply I got from the Minister was a typical one. It was a human problem which we were raising. We told the Minister that the old people in the winter were having to choose between food and fuel. That is a statement I, for one, will stand by. The Minister replied:
The supplementation given by the Assistance Board is adequate for the needs of the people whose interests they serve."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1953; Vol. 513, c. 479.]
If the Minister calls that a human reply, I do not.
During the debate on the Finance Bill last year, we wondered how the reductions in Purchase Tax would benefit the old people. The Chancellor of the Exchequer underlined the attitude of the Government in treating the old people meanly. He told us:
The case of the old-age pensioners is very near our hearts.
They must be pretty cold hearts—that is all I can say about it. When we on this side asked the Chancellor what benefits he thought the old people would get from the reduction in Purchase Tax, the best that he could say was:
…pipes, tobacco-smoking equipment…has been reduced from 66⅔ per cent. to 50 per cent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1953; Vol. 515, c. 717.]
That is the sort of treatment the Government have been giving the old people right the way through.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson) spoke about the needs of the old people as being different from those of us who are younger. Everybody agrees that that is true. I think we can agree also that their chief needs are for food, fuel and light. As long ago as May, 1953, I was lucky enough to have the Adjournment. I asked the Minister if he had considered whether the weighting in the Index of Retail Prices could


be altered for the old people so that those three items came first. We got nowhere at all with that suggestion.
It will be well within the recollection of the House that every time we have asked Questions about these things the Minister and his hon. Friends said either that it is not true that the old people are as badly off as that, or alternatively that they are better off under this Government than they were under the previous Government. That was not and is not the point. The point is not how well off they were under any previous Government, but how well off they are now. We repeatedly tried to get the Government to see that if the price of fuel—of coal, gas and electricity—went up, the old people should have some concessions, but everywhere we met with a blank wall. We then asked the Minister how old people were to get replacements of household equipment or footwear or clothes. It was obvious from his reply that he did not realise that old people do not want second-hand clothing from any source, however good it may be. The Minister need not shake his head; I have the HANSARD here containing the Question and answer.
Although we on this side of the House have pressed repeatedly for the old people to have some help in their purchase of coal or electricity, some price concession, the truth is that the old people do not want goods at a cheaper rate. They want the money with which to buy them. Every time we have advanced these causes to the Minister, we have tried to give chapter and verse, and in my opinion we have given chapter and verse over the long history since 1951, but we have got nowhere. The Minister talked about doing something in four or five months' time. It is all right for hon. Members to talk about that, but for an old person with nothing, waiting four or five months can be a very grim business.
Going back to 1953, I can remember the Minister being asked, not for a Royal Commission, but whether he would have an inquiry into the cost of living of the old people before the winter came. That was in May, 1953. The answer was, "No," and nothing has been done. If the Minister is happy about how the old people got through the last winter, in view of the price of coal, we on this side of the House are not.
I believe that that attitude has been adopted right through this business. I should have thought more of the Minister and his party if they had admitted that these things were true but had said that they intended to do nothing about them. The Minister looks puzzled. All I can say to him is that if the speech he made today goes out to the old-age pensioners' associations, the Minister and his party will be very sorry at the next Election, however much they may increase the pensions before then.
I think it was expected on both sides that something would be done for old-age pensioners in the Budget this year. I want to quote only one short sentence from the Chancellor's Budget speech. It is a sentence which the old people will never forget and which I hope hon. Members opposite will never be allowed to forget. The Chancellor said:
For my part, I take pride in the increased freedom of choice which the citizen now feels that he can enjoy in his or her daily life. The truth is that we must not be frightened of a little more ease and happiness or feel that what is pleasant must necessarily be evil."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1954; Vol. 526, c. 198.]
The Chancellor spoke of "a little more ease and happiness." Do the party opposite feel that in their stabilisation of the cost of living "a little more ease and happiness" has been brought into the lives of the old-age pensioners in the past three years? I gather that at least one hon. Member opposite thinks so. I do not know whether he will still think so after he has heard these figures which I intend to put before the House.
All of us, on both sides of the House, hoped, with the coming into being of the National Insurance Act and with higher pensions, that fewer and fewer people would be applying for National Assistance. Anyone who knows anything about old people will agree with the hon. Member for Lewisham, North that a good many old people go to the National Assistance Board only with the greatest reluctance. That is a legacy from the past into which I will not go at the moment.
The former chairman of the National Assistance Board, Mr. Buchanan, did a wonderful job in humanising the Board, but the fact remains, as all will agree, that old people go there only with great reluctance. Perhaps I might add that if they go there it is because they have to.


Yet today at least twice as many are going to the National Assistance Board as went to it three or four years ago.
What worries me is that in this country today we have something which I should have thought nobody would like—we have social security not provided as a right by contribution but provided by a National Assistance Board which, before it is able to help a person, has to satisfy itself by a means test that he is in need. That is the situation which we have reached in this country.
We on this side of the House, and possibly some hon. Members opposite, know full well what a means test implies. If more than one in four of the old-age pensioners have to submit to it, then I suggest to hon. Members opposite that the cost of living has certainly not been stabilised. Had the cost of living been stabilised over the last few years, it is reasonable to assume that fewer people would have gone to the National Assistance Board for help, rather than more.

Mr. John Peyton: Will the hon. Lady say how the situation today differs from that which prevailed in 1950 when her Government were in power?

Miss Burton: I thought I had explained that the number of people going to the National Assistance Board has steadily increased and that it is greater today than it was in 1950. I said that it was twice as great as it was three or four years ago. I thought I spoke sufficiently clearly and I think the hon. Member should have heard me. I have been trying hard not to discuss the past, because I am dealing with the present position. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) need not look puzzled. I have answered his question and if he would like to ask another, I will sit down in order that he may do so.

Mr. J. N. Browne: Have not the rates increased, too? They must, therefore, embrace a larger number of people. That is one reason for the increase, if not the only reason.

Miss Burton: My right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs), who is sitting on the Front Bench below me, says. "That is some arithmetic." I think we will leave it there. We are saying that the number applying to the National Assistance Board has risen.

Mr. William Keenan: The number of pensioners has not doubled.

Miss Burton: I did not say that it had. I said that the number of old age pensioners who were applying to the National Assistance Board today for help was nearly twice as great as that of three or four years ago. There are not twice as many pensioners. If more people have had to go to the National Assistance Board, how can the Conservative Party maintain that the cost of living has been stabilised? Is any hon. Member prepared to say that old people have gone to the National Assistance Board because they like going there? No one is prepared to say that, apparently, and I may take it, therefore, that hon. Members opposite have no answer.

Mr. J. N. Browne: One factor is the increase in rates. Another factor, which we are all glad to see, is that many more old people are learning that it is not wrong to go to the National Assistance Board.

Miss Burton: I hope the hon. Member will be able to speak later and then he can do his arithmetic.
I feel that the old people have a legitimate complaint when they say that the present system penalises thrift. In common with a good many hon. Members, I have felt for some time that it is hard lines on an old-age pensioner who has a little bit of money put by that he is not able to go to the Assistance Board for help—that is not the fault of the Assistance Board—whereas a person who has not been thrifty can go to the National Assistance Board. That is a situation which we must consider.
Here I am speaking entirely for myself, but when we are suggesting that pensions should be increased, we ought at least to suggest where the money is to be found. I believe that the old people are the responsibility of the community and I also feel that the day of people having to pay equal National Insurance contributions has passed. I believe that people who have more should pay more. It is quite wrong—and I am speaking only for myself—that a person earning £5 a week should have to pay the same contribution as a person earning £10 a week. I do not doubt that everyone will be looking to this matter when we come


to discuss any proposals in the autumn. I should like ultimately to see pensions provided out of taxation—I think that they are the responsibility of the community—as are family allowances and practically the whole of the Health Service.
I believe that, unless we are to have a very large Exchequer contribution, to give everybody a decent pension will mean that the weekly contributions must be extraordinarily high, and I think that we have all to face that fact. One day I should like to see old-age pensions paid as of right to every citizen in this country without a means test. I hope that we shall come to that.
We were asked today what we on this side felt about increasing the contributions. I do not think that the people of this country would have the slightest hesitation if they were asked to pay increased contributions so as to raise old-age pensions. In saying that they would be prepared to do so, I would make the point that I think that the day of the equal contribution has gone. Those who earn more should pay more.
In conclusion, I should like hon. Members to look at a leader in today's "Times," in which it is said:
The issue is thus whether benefits should be raised 'immediately,' meaning in the late autumn, rather than in the winter or the following spring. The Opposition will have to be more than usually convincing to upset the Government's case for postponing action until future policy has been settled.…
We on this side feel that to the old people who cannot manage at present, the prospect of waiting another six months is not a possible one. We think that we have made our case and we hope that today the Government will agree with us.

Mr. David Llewellyn: As the hon. Lady has been talking about "The Times" leader, can she say a word about the part she omitted, which was to the effect that social security is not today in the sorry plight in which it was before the Labour Government made their limited improvements in 1951?

Miss Burton: I should be unpopular if I took up further time from my side of the House, and I will leave the hon. Member to deal with that if he wishes to do so.

6.43 p.m.

Miss Edith Pitt: I think that we all agree that we would like to see additions given to those living on pensions of any kind. If I confine my remarks to retirement pensions it is not because I lack sympathy with other types of pensioners but because I have some knowledge and some understanding of retirement pensioners as it was part of my job, and is still, as a factory welfare officer in Birmingham, to help with the care and welfare of about 200 pensioners. In addition, I did a certain amount of voluntary work for pensioners in the City of Birmingham.
I think that in considering this case for increased pensions it is essential that we should do so on the facts. The position is not always correctly understood or correctly stated. There is a tremendous amount of public sympathy for old people, and the Opposition know this. In my opinion, they are endeavouring to cash in on the position. They know that the Government will be taking action shortly to increase pensions, and the Opposition would like to be in the position to be able to say that they forced the Government into doing so. I should like to remind the House of the Opposition's record in this matter.

Mr. Shurmer: Start at the beginning.

Miss Pitt: When new pension rates were granted in 1946, they were 26s. for a single pensioner and 42s. for a married couple, and they were then probably at subsistence level. The cost of living in subsequent years rose regularly and rapidly and nothing whatever was done to benefit people living on retirement pensions. I would remind hon. Members opposite that, during the whole six years in which they held office, the cost of living rose by 40 per cent., and the cost of food alone by 60 per cent. Since so much has been said about the importance of food in the lives of the pensioners, I think that is worth emphasising.
Even from July, 1948, when the whole of the benefits of the new National Insurance scheme came into operation, food alone rose, again under the Opposition Government, by 30 per cent. and this was so from 1948 until they gave up the job in October, 1951. It is true that on the eve of that General Election


they did something about retirement pensions. They increased them to 30s. single and 50s. for a married couple, but there were limitations.
Anomalies were created because the increase was payable only to those people who would have reached retiring age on 1st October, 1951. It was an awful job trying to explain to pensioners who reached retiring age after that specific date why they did not qualify for the increased pension rate. I had to try to explain it over and over again and the old people were bewildered because they could not understand why those who had reached what they regarded as the ordinary retiring age did not receive the same amount of money as their friends who had qualified by 1st October.
It was left to this Government to put that anomaly right and to increase pensions still further, as they promised to do, in 1952. Since this Government increased pensions in 1952, it is true that the cost of living has gone up, but very slightly. The figure is 3 per cent., and if again we talk about food alone, because of its importance to the pensioner—and I do not deny that—food has increased only by 3 per cent. since that increase was granted by the present Government in 1952. By steadying the cost of living, which this Government has done, we have again helped the pensioners, and it is essential that they should be able to see stability.
I should like to make one other point, which may be a minor one, but which is important. I think that in doing away with rationing we have also helped pensioners. Time and again women pensioners in Birmingham said to me, in the days when they were rationed, "I dread the thought of going shopping. It is such a worry going from one place to another trying to get something." That must have been said to hon. Members opposite, too, but they conveniently forget it.
I am not suggesting that 32s. 6d. a week keeps anybody. It does not and we all know it, but there are other facilities available to pensioners. One has already been touched upon many times, and it is National Assistance—[An HON. MEMBER "The Means test."]—where the rates are higher than ever. Often one is asked—at least I am—in

addressing meetings, particularly meetings of women, which are sympathetic to pensioners but which sometimes have not a great depth of knowledge of their conditions—what is available to pensioners. My answer is that under National Assistance they get a cash grant—small, it is true, but extra cash—their rent paid, an allowance for extra coal if it is required, an allowance for extra nourishment if it is required, grants for clothing and for bedding if they cannot afford it and can prove their case.
It is frequently said to me, having made that statement, "Why is this not mare widely known? Why do we not know that these facilities are available to pensioners so that we can encourage them to apply?" It is sometimes said—it has been said even on these benches—that pensioners are too proud to apply for National Assistance. That is not my experience. They are reluctant, yes; they are hesitant because they do not know exactly what is available for them. Sometimes they are misled by neighbours who think that they know all the answers. When I suggested to one woman in Birmingham some time ago that she was eligible for National Assistance, she replied, "Oh, no. They say"—that was, the neighbours—" that if I apply, they will take my bit of money away from me."

Mr. Ellis Smith: That is what they used to do.

Miss Pitt: The woman had only £200 and, therefore, qualified for National Assistance. All this should be known.
I have never once failed to persuade somebody whom I have thought to be eligible for National Assistance to apply for it. It has taken persuasion, understanding and tact; it has taken, perhaps, two or three calls, but people can be persuaded. It is now becoming more widely known that assistance can be granted and that the Board's officials are very kind and humane.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Now they are.

Miss Pitt: I know that, because I sat on the advisory committee. That is part of the answer to the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) when she asks why there has been the increase in the number of people who have applied.
It is not only National Assistance which is available. Increased pensions with incremental increases are now coming into operation and in 1953, for the first time, people retired with 10 increments, which considerably increased their pensions and gave a maximum of 44s. 6d. for a single person and 76s. far a married couple. These figures are bound to grow with succeeding years as more people come into the full 10-year period. In addition, statutory pensions are frequently augmented by private pension schemes or by ex gratia allowances from employers who value the services of their former employees.

Sir F. Messer: That proves that the pensions are not sufficient.

Miss Pitt: I am making the point that not many people have to live on the bare pension. These private supplementary schemes are of great value, because people feel that they have earned the money and that they possess independence. In addition, others have been more thrifty or more fortunate in being able to save and are not entirely without means. We should remember all this when we consider the pensioners.
Exaggerated statements are made about pensioners. It is said that they are going without food, and even that they are starving. It was said by the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) that we are starving them to death.

Mrs. Braddock: I said that if you starve them quickly enough, you will not have to keep them.

Miss Pitt: It was said by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) that pensioners are suffering real poverty. It was said by the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South that they cannot afford the necessities of life. That is not true. There may be an occasional case of malnutrition, but more often it is due to loneliness and to lack of help on the spot rather than to lack of money. Again, from my own experience, I know of no pensioner who is going without food.

Mrs. Braddock: Come into my constituency. I will show you a lot of them.

Miss Pitt: I am willing to go into any Member's constituency provided that the

Member comes with me and I am not led on a wild goose chase.

Mrs. Braddock: I will take you all right.

Miss Pitt: Some time ago I was invited—perhaps "challenged" would be the right word—by a Co-operative women's guild in my constituency to talk to them about the cost of living. Among the points that they had prepared for me were some concerning the position of pensioners. They stated that pensioners were going without food. I asked them then and there to give me names and addresses, but they could not. I asked them to send names and addresses to me, but they never did.
When I related the incident at a subsequent meeting which I attended in Kent, what I said regarding the Co-op. ladies and their failure to send me information appeared in the local Press. A week later a cutting was sent to me from a Kentish newspaper saying that the old-age pensioners' federation had had a meeting in the area to discuss my comments. They had held their meeting at the local Labour hall, which was very interesting. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Hon. Members may draw their own deductions.
The federation said, among other things, that pensioners in that area were living on the bare necessities of life and going without such basic foods as butter, bacon and meat. They said that they would write to the women's Co-operative movement in Birmingham, to which I had referred, expressing concern at their failure to take up my challenge. They said that they would offer to send to Miss Pitt the names and addresses of pensioners who were suffering and would tell her of their disagreement with her remarks as reported in the previous week's paper. I have not heard a word.

Mrs. Braddock: That means that you do not count.

Miss Pitt: It means, I suggest, that these irresponsible statements cannot be backed up with proof.
I do not wish to be misunderstood or misquoted. I am not saying that pensioners have an easy time. They do not go without food, but they find difficulty when they have to buy a pair of new boots or even when they have boots soled


and heeled, when they have to replace clothing, or when anything "gives up" in the house—blankets or sheets, for instance—or when they may get 3 or 4 cwt. of coal delivered at one time; they have a problem in getting the money. That is why I want to help them. But again, we should consider all the facts.
There are many old-age pensioners who live comfortably with all the little extras that we would wish them to have. I know many pensioners who enjoy their visits to their relatives, who have their smoke or their pint and their three-penny "doubles" and "rolls-up" on the horses.

Mrs. Braddock: Why not?

Miss Pitt: I am very glad indeed that they do.

Mr. Keenan: Of course you are.

Miss Pitt: But we should know the facts when we are considering the case.
It may be said that those who enjoy these extra comforts do so because sons and daughters help. One thing which I am glad to hear expressed in this debate—it has been said more than once by hon. Members opposite—is the feeling that sons and daughters should own a responsibility to their parents. Those of us who do help our parents do so gladly. When I am told, as I have been told, outside this Chamber, at meetings in Birmingham—and it was said at a meeting which some of us attended here when members of the National Federation of Old-Age Pension Associations came to talk to us—that parents do not like accepting charity from their sons and daughters, it really is nonsense.
We who help our parents do not do so from any feeling of cold charity in the sense in which that word is used. We do not do it from a sense of duty. We do it because we remember the sacrifices that our parents made for us. We do it 'because of affection and love. I never want to see that most generous impulse in our nature stilled or forfeited for the complete State welfare service.

Mrs. Alice Cullen: The hon. Member is very lucky to be able to do it.

Miss Pitt: Most of us do it, even if it means going without something ourselves. I speak for many when I say that.
There is one section of the community which neither the Motion nor the Amendment covers and which is really hard hit; that is, the people who live on small fixed incomes without any benefit from the State, the people who have been thrifty in the past and who thought that they had saved sufficient to provide for their old age. Their money has not the same purchasing power. They are the type of people who, when I was an industrial welfare officer and had to advertise for lodgings for employees, would answer the advertisements. When I went to see them they would say to me, "We have never had a lodger before. We thought we had enough money to live comfortably in our retirement but we find we have not. Since we have got a decent home we think this is one way of getting a little money to add to that which we have coming in." They are the people most hard hit, and it is with them that we should be concerning ourselves.
To return to retirement pensions, I think we must consider all factors, first, retirement trends, and second, the burden on the economy and present and future workers of an ageing population. Four things ought to be taken into account. One is that we ought to give opportunities and encouragement to people to stay at work, thereby improving their savings and pension rates when they eventually retire. It is my experience that most workmen do not want to retire at 65 for two reasons, the first of which is financial. They would like to preserve their job, and therefore their financial independence. The second is that they fear not having enough interests to occupy them in the years when they give up work. The expression often used to me in Birmingham is, "If I give up work I shall break up." Therefore, I am glad that there is a growing tendency to encourage workpeople to stay at work after what we regard as the normal retiring age.
The thing is to expand private supplementary schemes. I think that is the right thing to do, because, as I said earlier, it is an effort to preserve independence and it makes for stability in


employment. I believe that about 50 per cent. of the workmen in our population at the moment are in one kind of scheme or another, either a private or a public supplementary scheme. This trend is increasing at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum, so that that is another factor to be taken into account. All of us would rather pay a little more to get something extra in benefit and be independent of the State scheme.
The third point is—and this is a point that has not been raised before—that I hope it will be possible to consider raising the earnings disregard. At the present moment a man or a woman who is retired is allowed to earn up to £2 before any deduction is made from pensions. In passing, I would point out that it was only 20s. in the days of the Labour Government. The present Administration raised it to 40s., and I think there is a case for raising it still further.
A number of pensioners would like to do a part-time job. That is not in conflict with what I said earlier, about men wanting to stay on at work. Some of them have to give up their work because of their own health or to look after their sick wives and do their shopping. A part-time job is of great assistance to them, and I think that if we could increase the earnings disregard perhaps to 50s. or 60s., it would encourage more of them to take a part-time job.
I get letters on this subject, as obviously do hon. Members opposite. I had a nice one recently from one of my constituents. He is earning £2 a week as a school patrol warden. He had to do two and a half hours a day to get his £2 a week and he tells me that he works more hours than that but does not book them because it would not pay him to do so. I think that George Schwartz in the "Sunday Times" a week or two ago on this same subject of earnings disregards summed the matter up very neatly when he said that if a man knew on Thursday that he had earned all he could and anything more would be deducted from his pension, then his anaemia, arthritis or asthma would certainly come on on Thursday night.
My final point is that, after taking all these things into account, we ought still to consider the present basic pension level to see whether it can be improved.

Pensioners from my own constituency came here yesterday to petition some of us. They said that one in four were in need of assistance. I think that perhaps that is really higher than is the case, but we want the old folks' standard of living to keep pace with the rising standard of living which we are all enjoying under this Government.
We want our old people to get the best of it and to share in the returning prosperity. What we have now to ask ourselves is how much are we who are enjoying that return to prosperity prepared to give in order to improve living conditions and the comfort of our old folk. For all those reasons, I think it is very necessary that we should have the two reports which we are awaiting before any action is taken. Therefore, I support the Amendment.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: We have just listened to an exposition of the real Tory conception of what life for the old people should be. Never in my experience in this House have I listened to such a reactionary speech as that of the hon. Lady for Edgbaston (Miss Pitt). When I realise the position she occupied before coming to this House, I am amazed at the views she has put forward. It is true to say that the Minister at least attempted to gild the lily. I do not know what the hon. Lady has been trying to do, but she seemed to argue that everything in the garden was lovely for the old-age pensioners. That is not my experience.
I move as much as anybody in this House among old-age pensioners and I say, with all modesty, that the pensioners are infinitely worse off today than they were in 1951. I challenge hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to prove that that is wrong. If I possessed the wand of a magician, I would transfer the hon. Lady to my division and she would see something totally different from the picture she has tried to paint this afternoon.

Mr. Shurmer: She can find it in her own constituency.

Mr. Brown: I was amazed at the high degree of hilarity manifested at the beginning of this debate by hon. Members opposite. This is a very serious human problem and, instead of warranting hilarity, it warrants serious consideration. After all, these people on whose behalf


we are endeavouring to convince the Government they are in need of help are the people who served their day and generation when they were able to do so.
A great deal of lip-service and crocodile tears were poured out when the salaries of hon. Members were under consideration. We were told by hon. Members opposite, "Do not increase the salaries of Members of Parliament. It will have a reaction upon the old-age pensioners. Let us deal with their pensions first." That was the cry all along the line. The 1922 Committee, which has caused so much mischief in recent months, used that as an argument. It influenced the Prime Minister, and Members of the Committee said that they had received letters from hundreds of old-age pensioners protesting against the proposal to increase Members' salaries.
With modesty I say that I happen to be the honorary president of the general council of an old-age pensioners' association. I have not yet received one letter or a solitary complaint from any of that class or that organisation complaining about the proposed increase in the salaries of Members of Parliament. I have here one letter which I have received from an old-age pensioner. He is not complaining about the increase, he is complaining about the fact that the Government refused to honour the majority vote upon the salaries of Members of Parliament. Here is an extract from his letter:
I want you to tell me why the Government, after having the free vote on a Motion for increasing Members of Parliament's salaries to £1,500 a year, are able to say you can't have it even when the majority is in favour of the Motion. This isn't Democracy.
That old-age pensioner is not complaining, but there have been requests made from time to time by groups of old-age pensioners that something should be done for them. They are patient, long-suffering, decent and honest citizens who have served their day and generation. However much we may try to escape it, the responsibility rests upon this side of the House as well as on the Government side to see that these people, whatever may be their political philosophy, whatever they may have done in days gone by, whatever may have been their vocation, are relieved of their difficulties and

hardships. We cannot evade that responsibility and it is the duty of this House to apply its mind to the problem.
The problem of dealing adequately with old age, with infirmity, with injury, with sickness, with the wounded and with the unfortunate in life, has occupied the attention of this House for well-nigh half a century. This is no new thing which has dropped from the clouds within the last few months. It has been growing with great rapidity, and past Governments have failed to face up to the problem. Of course, attempts have been made to deal with it but, looking back on the pages of history, I must conclude that this problem has never been dealt with adequately. Scheme after scheme has been put forward but all have failed to meet the needs of the unfortunate for any length of time. I do not think any of us here have underestimated the problem, which is a colossal one, but it has always been approached from the angle of what the nation can afford to pay and, if the nation cannot afford to pay, there is no redress. If we determine the relief of poverty and hardship on an actuarial basis, it will never be relieved.
It is true that now and again a human approach is made, but never to the fullest possible degree. In 1954 the problem is the same as it was in 1908 when the first old-age pensioners' Act was put upon the Statute Book, but it is intensified. The problem requires to be tackled with courage, humanity and Christian fortitude and we should always have in mind the great service which these people have rendered to industry and commerce and on the battlefield. I have said before in this House, and I repeat it with greater emphasis tonight, that as long as we have wars we shall have sick and wounded men; as long as we have industry, we shall have broken and aged men. It is our job to protect such people.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of National Insurance is sheltering behind three reports for which we are waiting. First, he says it is advisable, in the long-term interest, to await the Phillips report. Secondly he says that before we can give any further increase to the old-age pensioners we must have the report of the National Advisory Committee. Thirdly he says we must await the report of the Government Actuary. If I understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly, those


three reports will have to go to his Department, be thoroughly examined and, after that examination, the result will be submitted to this House. Even if these are dealt with expeditiously, I cannot see that the old-age pensioners will get any relief before January or February of next year, and it is not good enough for these people to wait so long, however much the right hon. Gentleman tries to evade this responsibility.
I want to be fair and I know that there are hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who, deep down in their hearts, feel that something should be done, but they do not want to be outspoken. However, it is not only we in this House who express deep concern at the failure of the Government but thousands, nay, millions, of decent, honest, hard-working citizens are expressing themselves in no uncertain terms, as the resolutions on the programmes of their annual conferences show.
They are the people who, at a subsequent date will have to find the contributions. I will leave the Treasury out of it for the moment. I have no love for the Treasury, because I know the approach they make to these great human problems. Therefore, I will leave the Treasury out of it. It is these people who pass resolutions at their conferences who will be called upon to pay the increased contribution.
In my travels I have never yet spoken to a trade unionist who is not prepared to pay an increased contribution, provided that that increase can be earmarked for increased pensions. I find that on the agenda of one of the largest and most important conferences, which is to be held in a few days' time, there are 42 resolutions dealing with the economic and social conditions of the aged, infirm, injured, sick and wounded. The British Legion, which is a vast organisation charged with the responsibility of looking after the wounded, expressed at its Whitsuntide conference profound concern at the fact that pension rates had not been advanced.
The Scottish Bakers' and Confectioners' Union passed the following resolution a few weeks ago:
The failure of the Government to our old-age pensioners must be recorded to their shame. Out old folks must be a first charge on our society. They are entitled to, and must have, a decent standard of life and subsistence. We cannot tolerate any system which is to class

old folks as merely exhausted industrial material.
Those are the views of a well-organised trade union and not of men and women guilty of relying on hearsay and of making wild statements. The considered judgment of that organisation is that something should be done.
The Fire Brigades Union—and no one doubts the courage of our fire brigades—has expressed
…the strongest possible condemnation of the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards old-age pensioners. In view of the continually rising cost of living, with the consequent increasing hardship to this section of the community, which is already existing on the barest minimum standard, the Union petition that an immediate increase be granted to bring the basic pension into line with existing conditions; further, that any future rise in the cost-of-living index should be reflected by proportionate increases in basic pension.
The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, of course, has been warned about this situation. He has no escape on that score. As far back as November, 1953, his attention was drawn to the ever-increasing hardship suffered by old-age pensioners, ex-Service men and those in the lower income groups. On 19th March of this year my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) introduced a Motion on the subject which the Government wholeheartedly accepted, but nothing has been done to implement their promise. Since 3rd March, 1954, 20 Motions on the subject have appeared on the Order Paper. I suggest with all seriousness that procrastination of this character is not good enough for the old people of this country. The Government keep putting things off.
I make my appeal on behalf of these people because of the evidence, to which previous hon. Members have referred, of the alarming increase in the number of old-age pensioners and people in the lower income groups who have to have recourse to the National Assistance Board. I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Edgbaston that these people do not like to go to the National Assistance Board for help. We must train them in that direction. Our difficulty is that some of them have very vivid memories of the treatment which was meted out to them under the old Poor Law system, though all that has gone now.
In June, 1951, the number of people who went to the National Assistance


Board for help was 1,390,291. In 1952 the number was 1,535,591, an increase of 145,300. When the cost of living began to rise more people were pushed or sent to the National Assistance Board. In 1953 there were 1,698,933, an increase of 163,342. In June of this year, 21 days ago, when the half year ended, there were 1,768,787. That was an increase of only 69,854, but if one takes the three years one has conclusive evidence that the old people in the lower income groups are being forced to go to the National Assistance Board to maintain a standard of life.
If in 1946, a year which has been much quoted today, 26s. 0d. and 42s. 0d. were adjudged the appropriate rates—and I do not say they were—then, in view of the fall in the purchasing power of the £ since that time, 38s. 0d. and 62s. 0d. would be the corresponding rates now. The Minister and his Department cannot deny that those figures are correct.
Long before I knew that this debate was to take place, I took the trouble to search through some of the debates and the arguments that were advanced in 1908. The Tory Party of those days opposed the passing of the 1908 Bill on the grounds that the Government ought to wait for the result of the Royal Commission which was then sitting. They said that they could not afford to commit the nation to such a colossal expenditure, which was £7 million. That great Welshman, Mr. Lloyd George, as he then was, replying to the argument advanced by the Tories at that time, said on 15th June, 1908, in a speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, that the Government could not wait for the Report of the Royal Commission,
…having regard to the fact that we are anxious to utilise the resources of the State to make provision for undeserved poverty and destitution in all its branches.
I re-emphasise those words. The old-age pensioners, discharged soldiers and all those who come within the purview of our Motion, cannot wait for the reports of the Committees which are now sitting. In the same debate the Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Asquith, also speaking on the Bill, said in reply to the arguments advanced by hon. Members:
But are we, because of the difficulties and because of the complexity of the task. to sit still, with dumb lips and folded arms and

bewildered brains and palsied energies, while this great procession of the poor and necessitous and unbefriended linger out the last days of lives the strenuous years of which have been given to the service of industry and of the State?
Those were the words of a great Prime Minister. They were the words of a man looked upon with great respect by all parties. Today I say to the Minister and to the Department: take in those words, assimilate them and apply their meaning to the problem which is confronting us. May I express the hope that the desperate needs of the old-age pensioners, the people in the lower income groups, the wounded soldiers, the sick and infirm and injured, will not be turned into a political pawn for electoral purposes. It will be a sad day when that takes place.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Brown: I have sat here for four hours, and as I am not anxious to keep the House for a long time, I am afraid I cannot give way.
To hon. Members on this side of the House this is a burning question. I have lived with it all my life and whenever I have an opportunity I shall voice my opinions, whether they are acceptable to my own side or to the Government side. I want to make one or two suggestions.
Between now and October the Minister and his Department could give an interim grant or payment to old-age pensioners and those with low incomes. The Minister has funds available. A few months ago the Joint Parliamentary Secretary rebuked me when I made a suggestion. He said that I had better not raid the Fund. I stood rebuked at that time, but that rebuke will not affect me today. The Parliamentary Secretary should be reminded of what the present Prime Minister did when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and in difficulties—how he raided the Road Fund, taking £300 million for a purpose for which it had not been subscribed. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, to the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries and to the Department—get to work, find some brass for these unfortunate people in order that their lives may be made more comfortable and more happy as they are travelling towards the western shore of life.
I suggest that there should be submitted to the National Advisory Committee the question of the separation of


old-age pensions from all other classes of insurance. We have heard a lot recently about increased productivity by industrial workers, and we all welcome it. I am 100 per cent. in favour of increased productivity and improvement in our economic position. That increased productivity has been brought about by the sons and daughters, the grandsons and granddaughters, of the people on whose behalf we are appealing. They are entitled to something in return for what they have done for the nation, and the old people are also entitled to something, because they have given of their best and because, in their younger days, they were not able to put by for a rainy day, as their wages were insufficient. We are responsible now for their protection.
I hope that the Minister and the Government will see to it that our old people will not have to wait until the depth of winter comes when bad weather may carry off thousands who are entitled to a happy and contented life.

7.35 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser (Morecambe and Lansdale): I am sure that the whole House will feel that the warm heart of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) is matched by the kindliness and warmth of his voice. I noted one sentence in his speech in which he said that this whole subject should be approached from the heart and, in effect, that it should not be regarded from the point of view of actuarial calculations. I venture to think that it must be approached by both heart and head. If any Government were to neglect actuarial calculations—not to count the numbers and the cost—the time would very soon come when there would be less for all and not more for all.
I wish to ask the Minister whether, when considering details, he could make it possible for people after they have retired to take odd jobs for a week or two without losing so much of their pension as they now lose. In my constituency—and, I am sure, in many others—there are people who cannot work much, perhaps not at all, in the bad weather months. But in the summer months, especially in the seaside resorts, they could take up a job for a week or two, possibly a well paid job. It is better for them and for all of us that they should do so.
I think that loneliness is one of the most dreadful things about old age. Whatever can be done by any of us to mitigate the loneliness of old people and the loneliness of disabled people we should do, whether it be by action of Parliament, action of any society or individual action. Evidence which comes to me makes me think that replacements, even the soleing and heeling of shoes, is a cost very hard to meet out of a small income. I know that the National Assistance Board deals with these things, but there are many who can just carry on with the old-age pension but hesitate to go to the Assistance Board for a casual bit of help. I do not quite know what the solution is, but I make the point that a sum of money which may be adequate for modest subsistence, or modest comfort, is not necessarily adequate to meet expenses of that kind which arise.
We must soon do what we can to help old persons who are retired. I rejoice that the Government very soon will be bringing proposals to this House to do that. I do not subscribe to the view that this should be done without thought, without calculation and without counting the cost. I do not think that that ultimately would be in the interests of the old people themselves. I therefore think that the Motion put down by the Opposition is badly timed and could not reasonably be supported except for political reasons.

Dr. Horace King: If that is so, why did the hon. Member support the Motion on 19th March? It made the same demands on the Government and was carried unanimously by the House.

Sir I. Fraser: Yes, but this is Motion of censure; it is only a political Motion. That is what I said. But what the hon. Member has just referred to was a serious constructive proposal. There was what I might call a free vote, or no vote at all. This Motion before us, however, is one of censure on the Government.
I say that there is more likelihood of old people and ex-Service men and others in need getting help from a Government whose finance is sound than from one which ignores actuarial calculations and whose finance is not sound. I should, therefore, not be prepared to throw down the Government on a point such as that which has been put before us today:


namely, whether we do the job now, without calculation and thought, or whether we do it in three or four months' time, after calculation and thought. That is the only point between the two sides of the House today, and it is well that we should realise that.
I am very glad that the Minister and other hon. Members have made the point that we want to get away, so far as we can, from means tests and from hardship, and deal with the whole question of retirement on a logical, sensible basis which makes means tests unnecessary. Indeed, the whole conception of the Beveridge Report and the Coalition Government's subsequent White Paper, the Labour Government's Acts and all our subsequent actions in the lifetime of this Government has been to try to establish funds to which contributions will be made by the working elements in the population so that when they become old, sick or ill they will be taken care of by payments which will be had as of right rather than that large numbers of people should have to go as suppliants to ask for them.
I should like to think that we are trying, hard as it is, to move away from the older method and conception towards one in which we make provision for ourselves as we go along, and then, when we are old, we get it as a right. That is surely the way to encourage thrift and make this provision a co-operative effort in which all will take part and which will avoid the consequences, personal difficulties and inconveniences of means tests. But until we approach that time, we cannot wholly do without some of these safeguards. It is fair to make the point that the party opposite neglected to take us any stage at all along the road of fortifying the insurance system. They dealt with the needs of their six years by palliatives and not by trying to develop the insurance system.
I turn for a few minutes to the subject of war pensioners and widows' pensions. Whereas the old must increase in numbers, and will also live longer and, therefore, involve us in difficult calculations and most costly provision, the war pensioners are a limited number and are dying out. They are dying out at a rate of 16,000 to 20,000 a year, and the bill for the two wars taken together is dropping by many millions of pounds a year. The facts about war pensioners

are known, and there is no reason for delaying dealing with their case similar to that which has convinced me that there must be delay, consideration and calculation in dealing with the problem of old age.
I hasten to say that there is no conflict between any of us who speak for and care about the disabled ex-Service men and the old people. The British Legion, for example, is composed half and half of men from the two great wars. It is manifest that half of the membership of one million sturdy ex-warriors is already 64 years of age. Old age is approaching for them, and they are looking forward with eagerness or apprehension to the time of retirement. Therefore, old-age pensions are a matter which concerns them very much as persons. The younger generation, too, have fathers, mothers and grandparents who are swiftly approaching old age. There is, therefore, no conflict between the two kinds of pensioners, but it is administratively, legislatively and financially possible to deal with the ex-Service men's problem at once, although it is not similarly possible to deal with the old-age pensioners at once.
Indeed, the old soldiers could have been dealt with at any time in the last eight or nine years, but they have not been dealt with properly by any Government. I make the point, and the plea to the Government, that for all the reasons I have given the old soldiers should be given a preference, even if it is only one of a few weeks or months, taking into account, in the amounts which they are to be given, the fact that they are dying out; and pray God they will be the last generation of such men "once for all" in our midst, and not always with us, growing older and more numerous as the years pass.
The Labour Party has published the fact, I think, and the Minister has today said, that what is to be done will be based upon some 1946 calculations. It would appear that there is general agreement about that on both sides of the House. I wish to ask one or two question about it. First, the choice of the date of 1946 will not wholly satisfy those who are concerned with the disabled ex-Service men. We did not think that the arrangements made by the Governments in 1945 and 1946 were adequate at the time. We cannot, therefore, believe that


calculations based on those arrangements would be adequate now.
It may be said that no group in the community can escape the consequences of war. I realise the power of that argument, but I nevertheless ask the Government to do better than 1946 and to do what is possible to make up for the lost war years. On what index will the Government base themselves? There are three indices—the Consumer Goods and Services Index, the Interim Index of Retail Prices and the London and Cambridge Index. There is also a new index which seems to have been invented by someone, or at all events renamed, which is called the All-Items Index, which does not include all items but is, I believe, the same as the Interim Index of Retail Prices. I do not wish to develop arguments about what all these different indices are; I know more or less what they are but I do not know exactly how they will work out or how exactly the gap between 1946 and 1948 comes into this matter.
I do not know what amount of money the Minister will have to dispose of for ex-Service men, but when the time comes when he will know that, and before he discloses his exact plans, will he consider whether some consultation with those most concerned with the wellbeing of ex-Service men, and who have studied the details, might not help the Government to an appraisal which, even if it does not meet all the claims set forth, might nevertheless be adjusted to give the greatest satisfaction to the largest possible number? I ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether that might not be a wise and prudent course.
When my wife read the Motion and the Amendment—and she is a woman who has had 30 years' association with politicians—she said to me, "This will do some good." Then she added, "They are trying to get on to it, are they not?" What she meant was, "They are trying to get on the band wagon." I think it should be understood by those who read our words that the purpose of this debate was to try to anticipate the intention of the Government by an Opposition Motion. That Motion is worded in terms which amount to censure on the Government and which makes impossible the general agreement of the House.
The Motion could have been worded in such a manner as to make possible co-operation between the two sides of the House, but it was deliberately worded to make that impossible in order that a vote might be provoked. I make no complaint about that. It is the usual method by which our Parliamentary system works, especially when a Recess is coming and hon. Members wish to provide themselves with material for a lot of speeches.
There are some who have asked me personally and in correspondence why we cannot have a free vote on this subject. I think it well that they should be answered and I would venture, therefore, to make a few remarks about it in the hope that, at any rate, my attitude in the matter will be understood. I do not think that there is a leader of any party, or that there is anyone who has sat on the Front Benches in this House, and held responsibility, who would claim that this is the kind of matter on which a free vote could be granted—

Sir F. Messer: The Government will not take any notice of it, anyway.

Sir I. Fraser: —first of all, because the Motion is, in fact, a Motion of censure; and, secondly, because it involves Government policy and a degree of expenditure which would unbalance the Budget. For those reasons—although I am sure there are no such people—anyone who lent colour to the idea that this matter should have been dealt with by a free vote would be guilty of deception. But I am sure that there is no hon. Member of this House who does not understand this perfectly well and would explain it to his constituents if the question was raised.
By way of indicating the general assent of all parties to this dictum which I have ventured to lay down, I would say that during the period of the Labour Administration there was an occasion when ex-Service men, through certain spokesmen in the House, asked for a Select Committee, and the Whips were put on to defeat that proposal. I make no complaint that that was so; I merely illustrate it as a parallel so that those who read may understand.
I earnestly hope that the progress which the Government have made in putting our finances into better shape will continue, and that it will not be long before


we can afford properly to look after our old people and our ex-Service men. I wish the Minister all possible good will in the hard task which lies ahead of him.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: I subscribe to some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), but I do not subscribe to the view he expressed that we should deal with war pensioners more adequately because they are decreasing in number. Surely their case for being treated adequately and properly is as good whether they are decreasing or increasing in number. I should have thought that was the last argument which would have been advanced by the hon. Gentleman. Rather, I should have expected him to say that the case of the war pensioners was a deserving one, and that they ought to be dealt with adequately.

Sir I. Fraser: I said all that, but the hon. Member will agree that circumstances make it easier to deal with.

Mr. Pargiter: I do not agree. The hon. Gentleman made much of the rate at which the numbers of pensioners were decreasing and he said that the Government should, therefore, do something for them. I think that that would have been better left unsaid. The Government should do something for war pensioners on the merits of their case, irrespective of whether their numbers are large or small, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me.
It has been suggested that the Motion on the Order Paper is a Motion of censure. I wish it were. I wish that it had been put down as a precise Motion of censure. We have heard it suggested that it was put down after the Government had declared their intentions. But the Government declared their intentions after the Motion was put down, and not before. We had to have this Motion before we could secure a declaration of their intentions from the Government and it is doubtful whether we should have been made aware of their intentions were it not for the appearance of this Motion, to which the Government have had to pay attention.
I am glad that this Motion has been put down, because it will provide for

right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite—who had so much to say a week or so ago about the needs of the old-age pensioners—an opportunity to support it. Now the position appears to be not so urgent as it was then said to be. Now hon. Members opposite are saying that the old-age pensioners can wait until we have the report of the Phillips Committee, and probably for some time after that. It would appear that the degree of urgency depends upon the type of case presented to the House.
Really, it is a matter of the degree of necessity among right hon. and hon. Members opposite. The case in support of the old-age pensioners is a good one when it is used at a particular time in order to defeat another argument but on this occasion they find that the terms of the Amendment which they have put on the Order Paper are much better from their point of view. The Amendment represents, "Jam yesterday and jam tomorrow, but never jam today "—which is a good old Tory dictum.
Much has been said about the National Assistance Board and the reluctance of many people to take advantage of the services which are open to them. I wish to pay a tribute to the way in which the Board works. I consider that it works admirably and discreetly. No one is troubled. When one compares it with the old Poor Law system one realises how far we have progressed. Why is it that many people do not wish to use the facilities afforded by the Board? It is because they associate it with the worst days of Toryism, and the Poor Law and the board of guardians—days when conditions of assistance were such that if a person possessed some decent furniture very often that had to be disposed of before assistance was granted.
Some old people to whom I have spoken have said to me, "We were born too soon." Of course they were. They did not have the opportunities which are afforded today. Many of them have not enjoyed full employment all their lives and have had little opportunity to save. Many of them have had to rear children without family allowances and similar advantages. All the admirable things now being said about private pension schemes do not relate to these old people, because very few schemes were in existence at a time when they could take


advantage of them. Pensioners in the future will be able to enjoy such facilities because industry is sufficiently prosperous to be able to hand out more money and there will be pension schemes for the workers.
What is the alternative? The Amendment refers to the stabilisation of the cost of living. Presumably that will be indicated by the cost-of-living index. In future, we ought to have a separate cost-of-living index for old people whose conditions are so much different from those of other members of the community. In the case of most people the price of one thing may go up and the price of another may come down, so that the cost-of-living remains relatively stable for the average family. But old people are not in the same position as an average family. They have no children.
Generally speaking, the amount of money they need to spend on clothes becomes less and the amount of money which they have to spend on food increases. Therefore, if the cost of food goes up—and not many will say that it has not gone up—there is, so far as old people are concerned nothing to balance that rise. If they spend the greater proportion of their income on food, obviously they suffer greater hardship if the cost of food goes up even though the cost of things they do not want may go down.
That is the present position, and it has existed ever since the Chancellor of the Exchequer started to abolish the food subsidies. When we are discussing the increase in the pension rate, let us remember how precisely that increase was balanced against the food subsidies which were abolished. The Chancellor gave the figures. The actual additional cost of so much in rationed goods was so many pence and therefore the old-age pensions were increased by so many pence. But that took no regard for any other types of increase.
What have the Government done for other people compared with the small increase they have given to the old-age pensioners? They started off with the brewers. They got their cut. The steel owners got their cut and the road transport people are getting theirs; the Surtax payers, too. All that the old-age pensioners are to get is an increase in rent.
It is not good enough to say that this matter will be dealt with in several months' time. Presumably the Housing Rent and Repairs Bill will be on the Statute Book shortly. It will become operative within a month and the old people will be faced almost immediately with a further demand upon their very small incomes. It is true that they can go to the National Assistance Board but they are loth to do that.
Another factor of considerable importance, which does not matter so much to the average family, is the cost of prescriptions. This is an additional cost which bears most harshly on old people. Again, it may be said that they can go to the National Assistance Board, but they do not do that. They go without something else. All the time they are managing with a little bit less.
The hon. Lady the Member for Edgbaston (Miss Pitt) ought to have advised the Cabinet as to the nature of the Amendment which the Government should have put down. She said that old-age pensioners were doing very well indeed, that the way in which they could manage was so good that it was not a question of doing something for them because it was urgently necessary. However, I am sure that many hon. Gentlemen opposite think that it is necessary to do something urgently, but they intend to do it when they consider that it is timely. The hon. Member for Edgbaston said that the only thing necessary was to give the pensioners an increasingly good standard of living.
The Labour Party would be happy to restore the 1946 values. Although statements have been made that the Government will restore the 1946 values I doubt whether that has been said precisely on behalf of the Government. I did not gather that. What was said was that the Government would bear in mind the 1946 values when they came to consider the amount of increase they were prepared to give. That is a different matter. The Labour Party has stated categorically that it will restore the 1946 values. We intend to do that and I hope that before long we are given the opportunity.
When we consider the position which may arise within the next few months, we claim that it is not good enough for the Government to say that they are awaiting


the report. They do not have to await a report before dealing with an urgent need unless they want to delay. The fact is that they want to put off the decision for a little bit longer because it will enable them to avoid spending the money immediately. The Government deserve to be censured for the deliberate actions they have taken from time to time which have increased the cost of living of the poorer sections of the community, among whom must be most pensioners.
It is because of that that I support the Motion and I maintain that all those hon. Gentlemen opposite who had so much to say a few weeks ago about the urgent need of the pensioners should come into the Lobby with us.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: If I understood the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) correctly, he stated that the Government had expressed their intention to do something to help old-age pensioners only after the Motion had been put down. That is inaccurate. The Minister said in this House on 8th March that he held out every hope that during the lifetime of this Parliament—

Mr. M. Follick: This Parliament could last another year or 18 months.

Mr. Peyton: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will wait. My right hon. Friend said that during the lifetime of this Parliament he hoped that the Government would be able to do something for the old-age pensioners. The Prime Minister, speaking in London on 27th May, referred to this problem and said that it should be solved in the present Parliament in a manner worthy of British humanity.

Mr. Pargiter: Does the hon. Gentleman indicate that the Government regard the matter with any degree of urgency when they speak of the life of this Parliament? This Parliament might last for another year at least.

Mr. Peyton: The only point on which I am quarrelling with the hon. Gentleman is his statement that the Government did not declare their intentions until the Motion was put down. Their intentions have been made very clear.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) is not in his place. He has been in this House for many years and I have been here for only a short time. I have a great personal regard for the hon. Member and I was sorry that he saw fit to use such strong words about my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Miss Pitt). We all agree that she is a person with a deep experience of this problem, which is one she faces in a very humane way. I agree with the hon. Member for Ince when he says that this is a great human problem. I most earnestly ask hon. Gentlemen opposite not to be so free with their aspersions against those who sit on this side of the House.
Many of us are just as deeply concerned as hon. Gentlemen opposite. Many of us are just as well aware as they are of the gravity of the problem. Many old-age pensioners in my constituency and the constituencies of other hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House write to us and bring their problems to our notice. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, in the name of justice, if nothing else, to recognise our sincerity. The hon. Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Shurmer) has not been on his feet during the debate but he has hardly kept his mouth shut.

Mr. Shurmer: I do not intend to be quiet.

Dr. H. Morgan: Some of us do not think that we are here to keep our mouths shut.

Mr. Peyton: I should like to refer to what was said by the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill). I say at once that I thought that her speech was temperate and moderate in tone. I was surprised that it was so temperate and moderate in view of the fact that it was made in support of what we properly regard as a Motion of censure. I thought that the right hon. Lady would have spoken in very much stronger terms. I am glad that she did not, and if I may respectfully offer my congratulations—

Dr. Summerskill: Do not do that.

Mr. Peyton: Apparently the right hon. Lady is unable to accept the gesture in the spirit in which it was offered. I am sorry, but I respect the fact that she uttered


her criticism in a temperate and moderate way. If she cannot acept my congratulations, I am sorry.
The real point is that the whole basis of the National Insurance scheme was undermined by the galloping inflation which took place in the years 1945–51. Hon. Gentlemen must accept the fact that—

Mr. Shurmer: No.

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member for Sparkbrook says that he will not accept a fact before I tell him what the fact is. The Cost-of-Living Index between 1947 and 1951 rose by 29 per cent. and the cost of food rose by 42 per cent., but nothing was done about retirement pensions until the eve of the General Election. Then there was a very small concession, 4s. extra being given.
Even then some people did not benefit from the concession, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston said. She made the point clearly and well that there were some people who reached pensionable age after the appointed day who did not get the increase. It was more than any reasonable man could do to persuade those people who became pensionable immediately after the appointed day that this was a right or reasonable course for the Government of the day to adopt. The whole tenor of Socialist administration in this field showed an increase in and a regrettable reliance on National Assistance rather than pensions. I warmly share the view expressed on both sides of the House that the pension is infinitely preferable to assistance.
We on this side of the House are entitled to claim that when the Conservative Government came into office in 1951 they faced a very grave financial situation. In 1950 the situation had been nothing like so severe, but the Labour Government had found it impossible to make any very great concessions. However, in 1952 the Conservative Government found it possible to make material concessions to the pensioners.

Mr. Shurmer: We hear a lot from the Government benches about the situation in which the Conservatives found themselves when they came into office. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the pension was 10s. per week when the Labour Government came into office in

1945 and yet, although the country was nearly bankrupt through the war, we were able to raise the pension to 26s.?

Mr. Peyton: What I am trying to make clear is that when the Labour Government left office bankruptcy was a very real prospect.
I should like to know exactly what are the intentions of the Labour Party. They tell us that pensions are to be increased, Health Service charges will be removed and food subsidies will be re-introduced, but we have not been told by them how the money will be raised and where it will come from. This is a very serious problem, and one cannot wave it aside, as some hon. Members opposite would like to do, by saying "Take it out of taxation."
I understood previously that all parties were wedded and committed to the contributory principle in National Assistance. It appears from some speeches by hon. Members opposite that that is now being made a very open question. I want to refer to the speech made on the Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill, in 1951, by the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West, which I thought was even better than the speech which she made today. She said:
I should like to make it clear to the old people of the country that the scheme which has been worked out in regard to their pensions was not designed only with the needs and interests of the old people in mind, but also with the needs and interests of their children and their grandchildren in mind.
A little later she said:
But it is agreed by all thinking people that unless the insurance scheme is modified in certain respects, in a comparatively few years' time the financial burden will be too heavy for the workers to carry; and they will be the children and grandchildren of the old people today."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 582.]

Dr. Morgan: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Peyton: There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. I want to make it clear to hon. Gentlemen opposite that we accept the principle absolutely. In a later passage of that very admirable speech the right hon. Lady pointed out the tremendous administrative difficulties to be faced before the problem could be dealt with properly in other words, before we could get the money into the pockets of the old-age pensioners, which is what we all want to do.

Mr. Keenan: Why not start now?

Mr. Peyton: The point which I am trying to make to hon. Gentlemen opposite is that, while I fully admit, as we all do, that this is a great human problem, it has nevertheless a very important material aspect. If hon. Gentlemen opposite are not prepared to accept that, the outlook for the old-age pensioners will be a poor one if we ever have another Labour Government in office.
The problem is, indeed, a serious one. By 1977 we shall have 40 per cent. more pensioners in the country, and the pensions will by then, it is estimated, have reached an annual rate of £420 million a year. That is something which none of us ought to try to laugh off. No hon. Member could possibly take credit if by his actions or the policy of the Government which he supported he did something seriously to prejudice and mortgage the future. The reason we enjoy a position of comparative strength, prestige and culture in this country today is that Our ancestors were not wanton in mortgaging in the future. We have in our hands a very sacred trust which we all wish to take seriously.

Mr. Keenan: Has the hon. Member ever heard of the National Debt?

Mr. Peyton: I welcome the forthcoming Report of the Phillips Committee and the quinquennial review. I should not easily be persuaded that the problem was so easy and so light that it could be disposed of by a wave of the hand and by means of a so-called interim solution. That is not possible. I cherish the hope that the two reports will make a valuable contribution to the solution of the problem and will point a way to the Government to enable them to make a really solid contribution towards the welfare of the people whom we all wish to benefit.
I want to make a point about the retirement rule and the earnings condition. As things are at the moment, I appreciate that they are separate matters. Persons have first of all to prove that they have retired, and when they have retired they are not allowed to earn more than 40s. per week. It is unreasonable to ask a person who reaches pensionable age to separate in his mind these two conditions which appear to him to be very closely associated. The retirement

condition means that one cannot work more than 12 hours a week, and the earning rule is that one cannot earn more than 40s. a week. It is a most unfortunate situation when it is realised that the majority of the people who are most intimately concerned cannot earn 40s. in 12 hours. When my right hon. Friend examines the Report of the Phillips Committee, I hope he will bear in mind that this appears to the ordinary citizen affected by the problem to be wholly unreasonable. I hope very much that the Government will find it possible to remove what many ordinary people regard as an unwarrantable anomaly.
I wish to make a few comments about the war disabled. Here again, we are entitled to point out that the basic rate of 45s. per week established by the Labour Government in 1946 was not touched again, despite the catastrophic rise in the cost of living which took place. It was left to this Government to do something. I admit that the allowances were established in 1951 before the Labour Government left office, but comparatively few were eligible to receive them. It was left to this Government, in the teeth of a really serious financial crisis, to raise the basic pension by 10s. per week and also give several material increases in the allowances.
There is one point which I wish to make in connection with war disability pensioners. I accept, of course, that the merger of the two Departments has produced very beneficial results, but I believe that we are in some danger of getting war disability benefits too closely associated with National Insurance pensions and other benefits. In my view, these men are in a very exceptional position, and I very much hope that the Government will take a step which will indicate to the British public the plain fact, as it appears to me, that these men who were disabled in the catastrophe of war have a very special claim on the conscience and generosity of the nation.

Mr. Shurmer: Is it fair for the hon. Gentleman to give the impression to the public in his speech that the Government which he supports raised the disability pension by 10s. per week, when everyone knows that that applies only to a very small percentage? It was cut down in the case of a very large percentage of


disabled men, so that a very few got 10s., some others got 7s. 6d., and the largest percentage very much less.

Mr. Peyton: The fact is that the basic pension, in general, was increased from 45s. to 55s. per week. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I repeat what I said earlier—that this is a great human problem, which has its vitally important material side, and that those hon. Gentlemen opposite who evade it will be rendering an ill service to those whom they wish to benefit.
The real upshot of our charge against hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite is that, when they were in power, they failed to recall, as they were in duty bound to do, that the first victim of spendthrift policies is the pensioner, and that the Government which husbands the nation's resources is the one which will ultimately earn the nation's gratitude.
The criticism which I make, if not against the whole of the party opposite, at least a large proportion of it, in putting down this Motion is that they have sought, I believe for political ends, to play on the very natural desires of the old people, to anticipate the Government's intentions and to mislead this very large section of the community which we all admit has a very strong claim to our support. I do not believe that it is right or proper for the party opposite, in view of their own weary and gloomy record in this matter, to level those charges which they have levelled tonight.

8.25 p.m.

Rev. Llywelyn Williams: The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) would have been well advised to have kept clear of his strictures on this side of the House in regard to the history of old-age pensioners. When the social and economic history of this century is written, the historian of the future will allocate to its proper sphere the miserable record of the Conservative Party from the last decade of the last century to this year 1954, and will properly give credit to the remarkable change which this century has witnessed, particularly within the last 10 years, as a result of the Labour Government.
The hon. Gentleman also referred in his speech to what might be happening in 1977. I am just about tired of listening to what may be happening in 1977, when the so-called deficit of £420 million

in the National Insurance Fund may have come about.

Mr. Peyton: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that his right hon. Friend who opened the debate, the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill), said that this was a matter of great concern to herself in 1951?

Rev. LI. Williams: I admit that that prognostication may be correct; on the other hand, it may be completely incorrect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) said, we are living in a rapidly developing scientific and technological age. Who knows today what will happen in the field of scientific discovery and the intensification of productivity by 1977?
This debate has been characterised by an unusual amount of contradictions from the other side of the House. We have listened to speeches which have suggested that everything in the garden was lovely, that many of our speeches on this side are completely synthetic and completely fictional, and that the conditions which we have sought to describe had their reality only in our fevered imagination. As the hon. Member for Yeovil happily suggested that we might even be actuated by political spite, I must put on record, so far as I am concerned, the view that, if what the Minister of National Insurance certainly suggested today and if what the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Miss Pitt) suggested—if these statements are true statements, then I live among a pack of liars, because I hear continually from people whose respect for the truth is at least equal to that of any hon. Members who sit on the benches opposite that their conditions of living, as they know them, are very difficult.
Much play has been made about the cost-of-living index. Surely it is about time that supporters of the Government were compelled by the very exigencies of logic to accept our statement with regard to the old-age pensioners that their cost-of-living index must be limited to food on the one hand and fuel on the other, since they are responsible for the greater part of their budget.
I have a paper here which tells us of the increase in the prices of some basic food commodities. I am not talking about tins of peaches, tins of pears, tins of salmon. I am talking about the things without which people just cannot live.


Here are some very alarming figures. Milk has increased in price by over 30 per cent.; tea by over 20 per cent.; bread by over 36 per cent.; sugar by over 60 per cent.; margarine by over 80 per cent.; butter by over 144 per cent. I have not found out what the percentage increase is for meat, but it is a fantastic figure. It is the prices of these commodities that provide us with a gauge by which to measure whether the cost of living for the old people has increased or decreased during the last two years.
Before coming to this debate I made a point of consulting some of the medical practitioners in my constituency who visit the people's homes. They do not sit back in Government offices, reading statistics.

Sir F. Messer: Not just facts on paper.

Rev. LI. Williams: As my hon. Friend says, not just facts on paper.
They visit the homes of the people and see for themselves how they live, and they have told me that there are definitely obvious signs this year of undernourishment among many of our old-age pensioners. In this connection, I should like to give the Minister an illustration of a very cruel approach to this problem of the old and poor.
A medical friend of mine has told me that he has to appear before a medical council because he prescribed far two patients a very fine food called Casilon. It has very high protein value. The local health authority is concerned because it says that it is a food and not a drug, and, therefore, the doctor ought not to have prescribed it. The doctor prescribed Casilon because he was of the opinion that the people for whom he prescribed it just could not afford to buy meat at its present price. Those people must have food with protein value and vitamins. It is a terrible indictment, a shocking indictment, that a medical practitioner who has a social conscience and who visits people in their homes and sees two who, in particular, are suffering undernourishment should be regarded as one who is not carrying out his task as a medical practitioner under the National Health Service because he prescribed for them this valuable tonic.
The Motion and the Amendment are agreed in principle that the old-age retirement pension should be increased. The

newspapers are headlining the news that the old-age pensioners can expect from the Government at an early date an increase in the retirement pension.

Mrs. Cullen: If they are alive then.

Rev. LI Williams: The Minister himself, I am sure, will not deny that the pensioners can expect an increase—

Mr. H. Hynd: Just before the Election.

Rev. LI. Williams: —whether in a month or in three months or six months. If that is true, then there is a tacit admission that the cost of living for old-age pensioners has gone up. The Minister says that we must await three reports a report on the employment of old people. Sir Thomas Phillips's report, and the quinquennial review of the Government Actuary. The Minister insists that those reports must be studied before he can implement this semi promise to the old-age pensioners that their retirement pension will be increased.
I challenge the Minister of National Insurance on that point. In 1952, the Government increased the old-age pensions, and I give them credit for that. In 1952, apparently there was no need for a detailed examination. Obviously, following a cursory general review of the situation, the Minister rightly decided that there should be an increase. Surely a cursory review of the economic situation obtaining in the lives of the old-age pensioners today should compel him to give an interim increase now. If the reports of these three committees warrant a more substantial increase, he can give it at the right time, but it has already been proved to the hilt, without any possible contradiction, that the old-age pensioners need at least this interim increase in the basic pension.
I cannot for the life of me see how any Government spokesman can possibly give this glad news to the old-age pensioners much before January or February, 1955. I am glad that the Minister has contradicted the time factor given by the Earl of Selkirk, who spoke for the Government in another place. The Earl of Selkirk said that he could not give an assurance that the reports would be available before next year and I am glad to know that his prognostication was incorrect. When the reports are forthcoming there must obviously be a period for a close


analytical study of them and I therefore cannot see that the news of the increase in the basic pension can possibly reach the waiting ears of old-age pensioners much before March.
I am speaking now directly to the Minister: I remind him of the words spoken by Lord Beveridge in another place about the very unfortunate consequences of this kind of announcement being made about old-age pensions in the shadow of an Election. He said that such a thing was to be deprecated, and I have the words here if the Minister would like me to read them.
I believe that the arguments which have been adduced today have been strong enough in themselves to persuade the Minister that this procrastination is an injustice to the old-age pensioners. Much reference has been made to the National Assistance Board. When we introduced the National Insurance Act of 1946 the general purpose on our side of the House, I imagine, was to make that pension roughly equivalent to a basic subsistence pension. In another place, Lord Beveridge said that although he was not particularly enthusiastic about that approach, obviously the Coalition Government and the Labour Government which followed it had accepted that as a general working principle. That basic subsistence pension in 1946 is no subsistence pension today and recourse is, therefore, made to the National Assistance Board.
I want to read to the House some very impressive words. The man who uttered them is a greater authority on insurance questions than anyone who sits on the benches opposite and, if I may say so with great respect, a greater authority than anyone who sits on these benches. He yields to no one in his sincerity and he has that wonderful gift of translating figures into human values. This is what Lord Beveridge had to say—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I do not know whether the hon. Member intends to quote from debates of this Session in another place, but, if so, he would not be in order in doing so.

Rev. LI Williams: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Perhaps I can give the gist of what he said.
This great social, economic figure in the life of Britain has said that he regards the increasing resort to the National

Assistance Board as very unfortunate, and I agree with him. I am sure that hon. Members on this side of the House agree with him. What I am about to say is without malice against, or personal abuse of, anybody on the other side. The hon. Member for Yeovil referred to the undoubted sincerity of hon. Members on the Government benches—and that may be so—but I must tell the House that sincerity in itself is not quite enough.
We would claim—and I think our claim can be substantiated—that we live closer to the old-age pensioners than Members opposite. I can say, with my hand on my heart, that some of the finest people that it has been my privilege to know dread the very idea of having to go to the National Assistance Board, and that the sooner we can work nut the philosophy of Beveridge and make the basic retirement pension a subsistence pension the better for this country.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The hon. Member for Abertillery (Rev. Ll. Williams) has brought an open mind and sincere feelings to our debate. I am sure that it can be said, as in his own words, that he realises that people are not paper and are not statistics. If we on these benches do not live as closely as he does to the old people, I can assure him that we do our best to understand their plight.
I think that this debate has suffered from being too political and not sufficiently constructive. I should like to start by making three quick points which I hope are constructive. Apart from the general level of pensions, I think that one should try to find little ways in which old-age pensioners can be helped. Before I start, I will give the House one thought which occurred to me when the hon. Member for Ince (Mr, T. Brown) was speaking. He quoted from HANSARD of 1908–46 years ago—and I wondered whether any of our speeches in 46 years' time, in the year 2,000, will be read again in this House.
An hon. Member spoke about the earning rule and disregards. There is one point that seems absolutely cast-iron. The 40s. was fixed some years ago. It bought so much in terms of food, cigarettes, or whatever it might be. The cost of living has gone up since that rate was fixed—I do not know by exactly how


much—and there is a cast-iron case for the disregards being increased so as to have the same purchasing power today as they had when they were granted.
My second point was brought to my notice in a resolution of the Bolton branch of the National Federation of Old-Age Pensions Associations. It referred to the treatment of capital for assistance purposes. It is an interesting story. During the war, the Determination of Needs Act, 1941, was passed because people working in war-time were not prepared to save. They said that if they saved they would lose some of their entitlement to assistance when the war was over. That Act allowed £375 of savings—that is, 500 War Savings Certificates—to be disallowed for purposes of claiming assistance. The intention was that at the end of the war the saver should be given a certificate to substantiate him in making a claim.
The 1941 Act was hallowed by the Second Schedule of the National Assistance Act, 1948. Paragraph 7 (3, b) referred to the fixing of a relevant date by Order in Council. The fact remains, however, that so far as the National Assistance Act and the Determination of Needs Act are concerned, the war is not yet over; the date of the ending of the war has not been officially named. Current savings, therefore, are still qualifying as war savings.
Anybody who has £375 war savings, plus £400 other savings and a house, cannot get National Assistance. I feel it is time that this should be looked at. The war has been over a long time. It should be considered whether war savings should not embrace savings made prior to 2nd September, 1939, and/or a wider and more realistic description of war savings should be made—if, indeed, any description is required.
My third point is a short one about sub-letting. The view taken by the National Assistance Board of the Regulations is that if an old lady sub-lets a room without board, the net proceeds, after certain allowances, are deducted from the rent allowance. It causes a lot of work for an old lady to sub-let a room and clean it out. The present rule, although to some extent generously applied, may prevent some old people from subletting their rooms.
I should like to quote something which was said by Mr. James C. Birtles, J.P., who is known to many of us who are interested in old-age pensions, and who was the national president of the National Federation. In his presidential address to the conference last year, he said:
What I think is the worst tragedy in the life of an old person is to be friendless and living alone.
Anything that we can do to allow old people to get friendship and companionship in their homes is desirable, and this suggestion of mine may be one way of doing it.
A word of respect should be paid to Mr. Birtles, who this year retired at the age of 82. Although some of us have crossed swords with the National Federation, I agree with Mr. Birtles when he said, in his last speech to the conference,
I am not a party politician, and old-age pensions is my creed.
He has done a great deal for the old people. I am sorry that the National Federation has not used as much statesmanship as, I believe, Mr. Birtles would have liked to use, and that the National Federation, which is the spearhead of the political side of the old-age pensions movement, should adopt the attitude which they sometimes do.
As the House knows, the National Federation asked for an increase of from 32s. 6d. to 50s. a week. No harm is done, and in a democratic country we do not mind a bit, if people ask for a little more than they expect but that demand of the National Federation is unrealistic, and to some extent it disregards the interests of the working people and of the taxpayers. I prefer the view taken by the General Council of the Old-Age Pensions Associations, which has been asking with far greater justice for an increase of from 32s. 6d. to 37s. I believe that the National Federation is doing the old people a great deal of harm by the way it states its case. I do not think it is in its best interests, and the old people are in danger of losing the sympathy of the community.
I want to read to the House two excerpts which help to justify what I have to say. I am glad that the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) is back in her place. With a certain amount of feminine logic, the hon.


Lady complained that the Government Front Bench had been inhuman in its replies. When I was on the hon. Lady's side of the House, I thought the same of the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill). The hon. Lady referred with scorn to an answer given by a Minister to the effect that the old-age pensioners are "very near to our hearts." The Chancellor of the Exchequer made that statement, and this is the comment made by the "Old Age Pensioner" and printed and circulated in thousands of leaflets throughout the country:
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has kindly described you, the old aged pensioners of the country, as a 'first priority'.
My right hon. Friend did make that statement. This journal goes on to say:
—so the next time you cook your Sunday dinner of a few potatoes, a little onion and an Oxo cube stick out your neck and say, 'I am a first priority.' It might make you feel better, though I doubt it.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Browne: There may not be so many "Hear, hears" when I read on.
Don't these people make you sick? People who smoke cigars which cost as much as your pension"—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Browne: —"having the impudence to dictate to the people who are the salt of the earth; the people who have built and sustained this country during the past fifty years.
That quotation could apply to any Government, and I do not believe that it is in the interests of the old-age pensioners as a whole that it should be made.

Mrs. Braddock: It is true.

Mr. Browne:: Let me give the House the second quotation. These words were used at a rally in the Central Hall, Westminster, on 4th November, 1953, by Alderman A. J. Williams, a member of the Council of the National Federation, as reported by the rally special edition of the "Old Age Pensioner":
I charge this Government, and I say it with full responsibility. We can bring a charge of murder against them. I calmly and deliberately challenge this Government with callousness and with forethought of murder. They know the circumstances under which our people are starving at the present time. Do not let the old people be martyrs any longer.

Mrs. Braddock: It is true. The hon. Member should read some of the hospital reports.

Mr. Browne: Nobody except those who do not want to hear and do not want to understand will really approve of words like those spoken by responsible members of an organisation.

Mr. G. Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, because the gentleman to whom he has referred happens to live in the City of Cardiff.

Mr. Browne: That is right.

Mr. Thomas: He was the deputy-mayor last year and he speaks after a life full of experience of old-age pensioners. Although it may come as a surprise to the hon. Member, surely he is aware that people are not having enough to eat.

Mr. Browne: That is very definitely a matter of opinion and I, for my part, do not agree with the hon. Member. Perhaps I shall make a remark or two about that in a minute, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) has returned. What is the truth of this matter? The old-age pensioners have a very good case indeed, but it is not based on starvation. It is based on the fact that they need a square deal after six years of Socialism—

Mrs. Braddock: A square meal, the hon. Member means.

Mr. Browne: —and they deserve a square deal.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The hon. Member will no doubt be aware, for he is obviously very interested in this matter and tries to keep himself abreast of the facts, of the large number of cases all over the country of old people dying in isolation. They have remained in their rooms undiscovered for days on end. What does the hon. Gentleman think is the proper way to deal with cases of that kind?

Mr. Browne: I shall not reply to the hon. Gentleman, who has not been here all the time.
As I was saying, the case of the old people is best summed up in a few sentences. The facts are these. The purchasing power of the pension is now at the 1948 level and it should be at the


October, 1946, level. The pension has gone up 25 per cent. since it was granted and the cost of living has gone up 40 per cent. When the pension was granted the old-age pensioner got 26s. and that was 6s. more than National Assistance. Now it is 32s. 6d. and that is 2s. 6d. less. The present position is thoroughly unsatisfactory for the pensioners. We know that they are in a difficult position and we are glad that the increase has been promised.
There are three warnings I should like to give. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard) made a personal but important statement when he voiced the opinion, which was also voiced by other hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the working public are prepared to pay their fair proportion of any increased contribution. Secondly, it should be said that any increase in pension will not help those already on National Assistance. Thirdly, there are 4½ million books to be printed and, as the right hon. Lady knows, with the best will in the world that takes time.

Mr. Keenan: Why not start early and get it over?

Mr. Browne: I consider that the old-age pensioner is the number one priority; hon. Gentlemen opposite consider him the number two priority. They get their wages first—[HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] Well, I am not prepared to draw my increase in salary until the old-age pensioners get an increase. It is seldom in this House that I use strong words, but I am nauseated by the hypocrisy of the Opposition. The first priority is their wages and the second priority is the old-age pensioner.
Under what conditions has this Motion been put down? Between October, 1946, and August, 1951, under the previous Government, the cost of living rose nearly 30 per cent. and the only answer of the right hon. Lady to requests for an increase was, "Go to the National Assistance Board." I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) is not here, because I should like to draw his attention to one point. Today the "Daily Herald" asks:
How much longer have the old-age pensioners got to wait? How much longer are they going to be fobbed off with delaying excuses?

On 18th July, 1951, the hon. Member for West Ham, North asked the right hon. Lady for an extra 5s. At that time the pension was 26s. and he wanted it increased to 31s. The cost of living had gone up 14 per cent. and all he got was a dusty answer.
My last point is not a party one. Several hon. Members have raised the point whether the insurance principle will have to be thrown overboard. To some extent I agree with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and the hon. Member for Ince that perhaps National Insurance is better for day-to-day risks such as unemployment and maternity benefit. What we have to ask ourselves is whether the insurance principle applied to pensions on a national scale is workable without a stable cost of living. So far the answer have proved to be no.
However, when we consider continuing the insurance principle we have to ask ourselves whether the increased industrial and commercial pension schemes might not in time alter the whole picture. I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Abertillery who said that we should not look too far ahead. I have just time to read to the House what is always in my mind. It was said by Mr. Paul Martin, Canadian Minister of National Health and Welfare in 1952:
The cost of pensions in the final analysis, whether financed on an actuarial reserve basis or not, must be met in terms of the food, clothing, shelter and health care which these pensions buy, out of the current production of the country This leads inevitably to the conclusion, particularly with reference to any pensions programme that is universal, that the simplest and most direct way of reflecting and of meeting these costs is to pay them annually out of current production.
These are things that we shall have to consider later, but they are important matters. At the moment the best advice that we can give to young people is that, whatever the State pension rate may be, we are sure to get bread but if we want jam on it we must start saving now.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: This debate began with a speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) which put a reasoned and convincing case for our Motion. There have been other speeches from this side of the House and one or two from the other side which have also


carried conviction. I believe, too, that in the tone of their speeches, even if they do not do so in the vote this evening, some hon. Members opposite have supported the Motion. There have been other speeches. I come first to the Minister who is privileged to preside over a Department over which it was once my privilege to reside and which, if I may say so without being thought to be immodest, I had a hand in creating and building.
When the right hon. Gentleman reads his speech tomorrow I hope that he will be ashamed of it. He spoke to a brief which, I feel convinced, was prepared, not in the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, but in the Central Office of the Conservative Party. Other hon. Members opposite followed the tone of the right hon. Gentleman. There were references to such things as Members' expenses and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) talked about a cynical Motion. The Minister began his speech by saying that he would like this problem kept out of party politics. Have hon. Members opposite kept it out? Who issued this leaflet which I display to the House?

Sir I. Fraser: What is it?

Mr. Griffiths: It was issued by the Conservative Central Office. It includes a facsimile of a retirement pension order book and a picture of an old man and an old lady. It uses a retirement pension order book for political party purposes, yet the hon. Member for Yeovil talks about cynicism on this side of the House.
I should like to read to the House what the party opposite said during the 1951 Election. I should like to see hon. and right hon. Members opposite going back to their constituencies and reading from their 1951 Election addresses, comparing what they then promised with what they have performed. They said
When a Conservative Government is returned, the position of all pensioners, including war pensioners, will be reviewed. It is part of Conservative policy to see that help goes to those who need it and that it goes in time.
The Minister created the impression today, whether he wanted to do so or not, that at the moment there is no need to increase the pension and other basic rates under National Insurance. If the Minister's speech did not mean that, what did it mean? Every hon. Member

knows perfectly well that all the people who are now living on pensions are having a tough time, that they are having a hard time that is becoming harder and that unless something is done soon they will face a cruel winter.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government, who is to reply to this debate and say the last word for the Government, knows that this winter, in addition to everything else, there will be an increase in the price of food, which is rising all the time, and in the price of other things which are important to those who live on pensions and benefits and have no wages. In addition to all that, there will be the effect of the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill, shortly to become an Act. How much is that going to be?
If I do not carry conviction on this matter in this House, I do in the country. Unless something is done to mitigate the burdens already placed upon them and the additional burdens of the new Rent Act the old-age pensioners, the maimed, the disabled, all who are on these benefits, will have the worst winter they have had since the end of the war.
Suggestions have been made this evening which go contrary to all our experience. They were that these people are not suffering real need. I wish to quote a survey made last year by independent persons in a representative city, Sheffield, among people who are living on benefits, in particular the old-age pensioners. I quote from a report which appeared in the "Daily Express" on 1st March, 1953, after the 1952 Act had come into operation. I will deal with that Act in a moment. This was more than a year ago. If these were the conditions found by that investigating body in 1953 every hon. Member knows perfectly well that the position is very much worse now.
This was an investigation made in the poor areas of Sheffield by a team of experts and scientists in a week in 1953:
For a week a team of scientists moved into the homes of 300 old-age pensioners, They wanted to know how the old folk lived. They found that the average old-age pensioner with only his pension and National Assistance for his weekly budget is spending less than half a crown a day on food. They found some old people are getting barely one half of the amount of calories they should have to keep healthy according to the doctors. The diet of many of them was seriously lacking in


iron, vitamins and minerals and the effect of these deficiencies is bound to be serious in consequences to their health.
That was an investigation in Sheffield.
If there is any doubt in the House there is no doubt in the country that the mass of our people know perfectly well that older people and people on benefits of all kinds are having a very hard time and suffering grievously. The country expects us to act up to our responsibilities and to do something now, before the winter comes with the added burdens which are to fall on them including the burdens of the Rent Act. The Minister by creating the impression that here there is no problem and that everything is all right, was not acting up to the best traditions of the great Ministry over which he has the privilege of presiding.
We were told by the Minister that we have to wait until reports of committees are available. I want the Minister, when he replies, to tell us something about those reports. In the debate in another place in February this year, to which reference has been made, the Government spokesman said that the line the Government were taking was that before they could come to a decision they had to wait for the reports and have time to consider those reports. He indicated that there were three reports. The Government were anxious to see and consider them before they made up their minds. The first was the report of the Committee over which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is presiding and which is dealing with the problem of employment of older people. I presume that he was referring to the committee's final report, as it has already issued an interim report.
The second report to which he referred was that of the quinquennial review of the Government Actuary, which, I take it, is now in process of being completed. The third report was that of the Phillips Committee. The Government spokesman said in February that he was afraid there was no likelihood of these reports being available this year. I wish the Minister for Housing and Local Government to say whether that is correct.
The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance said he expected them earlier. Are we to understand that the Government have now given instructions

to these committees that they are to report this year, whereas in February the Government spokesman in another place said that they were not expected until next year? When the reports are issued, will the Minister then consider them fully and carefully before he comes to a decision on whether there is to be an increase in benefits? If he does so, let us see what he has to consider.
It was indicated in that same speech to which I have referred that the Phillips Committee is considering, and eventually will report on, problems that raise great matters of policy and which will arouse considerable if not bitter controversy. Let me indicate what the Government spokesman said the Phillips Committee is considering. Let hon. Members realise what are the discussions, controversies and arguments which we shall have when the Phillips Committee reports, if the Phillips Committee is to report on these problems which the Government spokesman said it is considering—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: And when the 1922 Committee has considered it.

Mr. Griffiths: We know that the final decision will be taken there.
The Committee is considering, first, the desirability of raising the retirement age. I ask the Minister whether he will confirm that. The second problem which the Committee is considering is the desirability of raising the retirement age for women. The third problem which it is considering is whether it is desirable to abolish the retirement condition as a condition for the receipt of pension. I put it to the Government that the House is entitled to a reply to the question: is the Phillips Committee considering these problems?
Are the Government to wait until the Phillips Committee has reported on these problems and the Government have had time to consider them and this House and the people affected have had time to consider them—or do the Government propose to settle this without discussion? Discussions with the trade unions may last months. The National Union of Mineworkers stated resolutely last week that it would not touch the raising of the retirement age.
When, therefore, we are told by the Minister today that we must wait until we


have these reports surely what he means is not only that we must wait until we have the reports but until the Government have considered them and made up their mind about them. Are we to take it that there is to be no increased benefits and pensions until these problems have been considered and settled by the Government? If so, there will not only be no increase this year, there will not be one next year. No one will argue for a moment that these enormous problems can be settled in weeks or even months.
The Minister says that he has asked for the reports in the autumn. I ask him whether that means that we have to wait all that time. Here I come to the contradiction in what the Minister has said. He has stated today, and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary stated in the debate on 19th March, that they are determined now, they have made up their minds—before any committee has reported. They have not got the report of the Government Actuary yet, nor the report of the Phillips Committee or any other committee, but the Minister has committed himself this afternoon, and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary did so earlier: they are determined, so they say, to restore the real 1946 value of the benefits. They have made up their mind about that before any of these Committees have reported. Why should they wait for the reports?

Mr. Lewis: Who is stopping them?

Mr. Griffiths: If the Government has made up its mind—and the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government made up its mind about it in March—why not do it now? These problems which are being considered by the Phillips Committee have no relevance to the problem of restoring 1946 values. Nothing that the Government Actuary can say will affect that. Both parties are committed. If the Government say, "We are determined to do this, we pledge ourselves to do it"—if they go thus far, what are they waiting for?

Mr. Peake: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question I put to him?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, I will.

Mr. Peake: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to support the increase in contributions which would be necessary?

Mr. Griffiths: I am coming to that and the relevance of it to this Amendment.
A good deal has been said about the 1952 Act and the benefits provided under it. I was Minister of National Insurance in 1945, and I do not apologise for my record. Within 12 months of my assuming office my colleagues and I passed a Bill in which we gave to the pensioners the biggest increase they have ever had. The Department which I took over was scattered all over the country, and we were confronted with immense difficulties. The present Department, the new Department, is well placed, and can deal with these things quickly. The present Minister does not have to pick up bits and pieces from all over the country as I had to. We increased the basic pensions from 10s. to 26s. and from 20s. to 42s. All that pensioners have received from this Government in three years is 2s. 6d.
Let me come now to the 1952 Act to which the Amendment refers. We are asked to take note of the 1952 Act. From the way that reference has been made to this Act one would think there had been a wonderful bounty from the Treasury—"Butler's bounty." Let us find out what was done by this 1952 Act. Let me reveal the secrets of this 1952 Act. The first thing that happened was that the Chancellor cut the food subsidies. That was done before the 1952 Act, and not after.
The food subsidies having been cut, the price of food went up, and afterwards the Government brought in the 1952 Act with these increased benefits. What happened next? Six-sevenths of the benefits provided by the 1952 Act were paid for the contributors. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman or the country to take my word for that. I quote from the Fourth Interim Report by the Government Actuary for the year ended 31st March, 1953:
The contributions of employed persons and employers together were increased by Is. 3d. a week for men and Is. a week for women … The contributions of self-employed persons were increased by 11d. for men and 9d. for women whilst those for non-employed persons were increased by 7d. and 5d. respectively.
The workers paid 8d. extra per week. The labourer, the lower paid man, paid 8d. The little man, the self-employed man, paid 11d. And what for? To increase the benefits to make up for the cut in the food subsidies which had been


made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. By cutting the food subsidies this Government made the worker and the little man pay increased prices, and then they made them pay increased contributions to make up for it.
The Minister asked whether I am prepared to face up to increased contributions. Of course I am. We provided for a much bigger increase when we built up the scheme. I am prepared to face up to increased contributions, but we think that it is absolutely right that not only should there be an increase from the workers but that there should be one from the employers and the State. There should be proportion in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that he made the poorly paid worker pay 8d. a week more and the Treasury pay 1d. a week.
I want to say a few words on another question. The Minister quoted a speech which I made in 1946 during the passage of the Bill through Committee when I rejected an Amendment to incorporate a provision for an automatic adjustment of benefits and contributions.

Mr. Peake: It was on Second Reading.

Mr. Griffiths: I said that it was during the course of the passage of the Bill. At one time in the 'twenties there was a provision of that kind which regulated the benefits provided under the Royal Warrant for disabled persons—war pensioners. That broke down. I made the provision that the Minister must have a review at least once every five years. The right hon. Gentleman asked if I had changed my mind. I have. I am not afraid of saying that. If he wants to get any kudos from it I am ready to admit that, looking back, perhaps I made a mistake. I am not afraid of saying that.
It is 50 years ago last week since I started work in the pit, and I am reminded of an old collier I knew. When I made a mistake this old collier chided me and then he said, "There it is. Do not be afraid. The person who never makes a mistake never makes anything else either." I say now that, looking back and learning from experience, there is one thing which we must do and which my party is pledged to do. I helped in making the pledge, which is that we must find a way by which we can stop the

undermining and eroding of the value of the benefits by increases in the cost of living.
Therefore, we make two pledges and we make them for a party that keeps its pledges. It is the party opposite which, three years ago, said, "Vote Conservative and we will mend the hole in your pocket." Hon. Gentlemen opposite know that the hole in the pocket is much bigger now than ever before. We say that we will restore the 1946 value and make provision by which every year there will be a review in order that the real value may be kept. That is a pledge. That is the minimum. After all, it is not a very great thing to do.

Sir I. Fraser: Will it go up and down or only up?

Mr. Griffiths: This is what the Minister said that he was going to do, so there is no quarrel about it. If we agree that it is essential to do that, why cannot we do it now? We do not want any more reports; we do not want any more committees to report upon this matter.
As to what has been said about hon. Members' salaries, I have been privileged to be a Member of this House for 17 years, and during that time I have never seen such mean behaviour as that recently employed by the Conservative Party for political purposes. What did we have from the Minister today? We had two letters from old-age pensioners saying that everything in the garden is lovely. Yet hon. Members opposite were recently telling us that in their constituencies and in their clubs and everywhere else they were inundated with protests. They said, "Members?—push them on one side! Do something for the pensioners now!" Is not that what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite told us? Is not that what they said to each other in Committee upstairs? Where are the resolutions? Has the Minister any of them? All he read was two letters.
But all of us have had letters. During the last three years the only increase the pensioners have had in their basic pension has been 2s. 6d. per week. I know that limits were raised, but I am old-fashioned in this matter and want to raise the basic pension. I have previously said that I wanted to raise the basic pension before raising the basic National Assistance scales.
It is not only the fact that the number of persons seeking assistance is increasing all the time which worries me, though if that goes on it will undermine the scheme and break it down. I am also worried by the number of people who will not apply for assistance. These people were brought up in the old tradition and have too much pride. The figures in the Report of the Ministry of National Insurance show that the percentage of old-age pensioners seeking assistance after reaching 70 is much higher than that at 65. Why is that? At 65 they make do with their pension until they exhaust their savings, and then when everything has gone they have to swallow their pride. I do not want that to happen. I want these people to get a pension and to keep their dignity and pride.
The people who are now 65 to 70 are a great generation, a generation whose middle life was spent in the 'twenties and 'thirties. Are the Tory Party proud of what they did to those people in that period? The miners then worked six days a week for less than £2. The railwaymen and others were in similar circumstances. Savings? They never had any savings. Their savings were taken from them before they had them.
The winter is coming on and all these people are suffering grievously. What our Motion says is, "Why wait?" There is no need to wait, and we ought not to wait. The Motion says, "Do it now." Before we leave tonight, I hope that the House will say "Do it now."

9.30 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Whatever our political or party differences, I think there must be general agreement on both sides of the House on the gravity and complexity of the questions we have been discussing today. Indeed, I think it may be said that the problem of providing for old age is one of the most difficult which this country will have to face during the second half of the 20th century.
It has, of course, two aspects—the human aspect and what one might call the financial or economic aspect. It must be dealt with in the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the other day, in a manner worthy of British humanity. I thought that the spirit of those words was admirably revived in the

maiden speech of one of our most recent arrivals in this House—my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden). It must also be dealt with in a spirit of honesty and of respect for the facts.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, on whom the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has just made a severe attack, has shown during his administration a high degree of sympathy and efficiency. He has been connected in his short period with some very remarkable pieces of legislation in the general field with which he is concerned, and he showed today in his opening speech a complete grasp of a very difficult problem.
It is not, therefore, necessary for me to do more than devote what time I have to the Amendment on the Order Paper in the names of my right hon. Friends and myself. What are the propositions in this Amendment? It asks the House to take—
note of the action of Her Majesty's Government in 1952 in increasing pensions and national insurance benefits.
That is a simple phrase, rather modestly framed, but there lies behind it quite a lot of important history. In the first place, I would plead once more for attention to a leader writer in the "Daily Herald"—and I am not surprised at my right hon. Friend's indignation. In last Monday's editorial, that newspaper—I suppose it is still the official organ of the Socialist Party—told its readers that the rate had remained unchanged since September, 1951. By an unhappy coincidence, this leading article was entitled "Reminder." It should have been called "Forgetfulness" or "Misrepresentation," for it is a complete and shameless travesty of the facts. Even right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite will admit that, and we may as well get the facts right.

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order. The Minister has just made a statement attacking a newspaper. I rise to a point of order because that newspaper has subsequently corrected that mistake, and the Minister ought not to make a statement like that.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Macmillan: I hope the newspaper will be a little more careful in future, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman opposite himself will be more careful about his facts. He made great play just now, in a rather moving passage, with the results of the social and food survey of the elderly, living alone or as married couples, which is known as the Sheffield Report. He made considerable use of it in his speech, and I think rather moved the House. His trouble was that he had not verified the Report. It was published, of course, in 1953, but it referred to conditions between January, 1950, and March, 1951.

Mr. J. Griffiths: It has been supplemented since by another which showed the same conditions.

Mr. Macmillan: These are official facts that I am stating. I am sure that when the right hon. Gentleman looks at them he will see that he made a mistake which it is very easy to make—he mistook the date of publication for the date of the survey.
Old-age pension rates under the 1946 Act became payable in October of that year. They were fixed in advance of the other benefits, which came into operation two years later, in July, 1948. They were fixed at 26s. for a single person and 42s. for a married couple. [HON. MEMBERS: "From what?"] They remained unchanged until September, 1951, and then in their last year—almost in their last gasp—of power, the Socialist Government raised the pension rates, but even then the increase to 30s. and 50s. respectively was given only to part of the claimants, those who had reached pensionable age before October, 1951—a very interesting date when one begins to reflect upon other events. Those who were to reach pensionable age after that date, by a refinement of cynicism, were left without any increase of any sort. For how long? Not for a short period of investigation, but for five more years. That was the Socialist Government's proposal. They were left to depend for any necessary help wholly upon the National Assistance scheme.
Listening very carefully to the debate, I found a curious dualism in the attitude of the party opposite to the National Assistance scheme. When they were in

office, it was, to use the words of the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill), who opened for the Opposition,
…an important part of the pattern; not something outside. It must be complementary; it must be integrated with our present social services.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 1995.]
And so on. Those were her words in May, 1951. When they are in office it is very respectable, but when we are in office, then, of course, National Assistance is nothing but the hated means test.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: Who said so?

Mr. F. Blackburn: Reply to the debate.

Mr. Macmillan: Let the hon. Member wait for it, and he will get it. The last Government, in any event, acted late and acting grudgingly. They did even worse. They allowed other insurance benefits, the unemployment benefits and sickness benefits, to fall out of line, and thereby impaired the uniformity of the insurance structure.
In contrast with this rather belated action, let me issue a reminder that will be more accurate than that to which I have already called attention. In May, 1952, the basic weekly rate of war-disablement pension was raised from 45s. to 55s. The war widows' pension was raised from 35s. to 42s. In October. 1952, the total weekly rate of National Insurance went up to 32s. 6d. for a single person and 54s. for a married person. Nor did we repeat the contemptuous gesture of September, 1951, of creating a division between the existing pensioners and the future pensioners. All, without qualification, were brought up to the 1948 basis.
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly, who read out one of our election pamphlets, attaching great importance to it. It had this importance; we pledged ourselves to act, and acted within a few months. What makes these decisions much more remarkable and much bolder was that they they came at a period when the national economy's strength had been reduced to almost its lowest point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted all these burdens at a time when


he was battling against fierce tempests to keep the ship afloat. The Socialist Party, as usual, had deserted the ship when the crisis came.
If we look through the records it is remarkable how the Socialist Party has a capacity for the creating of financial and economic crises and then running away from them—1931, 1951; the pattern changes but the grand design remains the same. Indeed, I have heard some of the most distinguished Socialist Members boast that one cannot have a good Socialist Administration without a first-class financial and economic crisis. I have a very fine list of those who have made that prophecy and, if necessary, I could quote them ad nauseam to the House.
Yet Her Majesty's Government, at a time when they had only recently entered into this dismal inheritance, when only by the most tremendous efforts was the balance of payments being restored and when they were checking internal inflation—the most cruel blow which the Socialists struck at the old people; at a time, moreover, when they were inhibited from telling the whole story to the people for fear of injuring British credit abroad which it was their duty to sustain—at such a time, the Government unhesitatingly accepted this additional burden, and I say, "Let the old people remember that," as I believe they will. It was a heavy burden but it was accepted without demur, and I say that when the Government ask the House to take note of their action
in increasing pensions and national insurance benefits
they are making no extravagant claim. It is indeed one of those statements which is remarkable for its moderation.
In an interesting speech today the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West called to the aid of her theme "The Times" newspaper. I think that she would have been better to keep off "The Times" today. This is the damning phrase in "The Times" leader:
Social security is not today in the sorry plight into which it had fallen before the Labour Government made their limited improvements in 1951.
What is the next thing which the House is asked by the Government to do? It is asked to take note of the Government's
success in stabilising the cost of living

since 1952. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his usual fairness, observed in one of the Budget debates that he would not insult the old-age pensioners by using statistics to prove that this or that sum was above or below this or that figure. He recognised, to use his own words, that many of them were too near the margin for that kind of mathematics.
Nevertheless, we have a right and a duty, to issue a reminder on this. Of course, in the first six months of our term of office we were unable to stop the continued rise in the cost of living. Six years of folly cannot be undone in six months. But if we take the official cost of living index since the last increase of pensions in 1952, we find that the cost of living has risen by only about 3 per cent. If we take what happened to the cost of food in 1951—the rise during that year—I take 1951, because that is what one might call the last year of the experiment in Utopia—the food costs rose by 3s. 7d. in the £. What has happened during 1953, the latest full year of "Tory misrule"? They have risen by a penny in the £.
I was looking through some of these debates, and I observed a speech by the right hon. Member for Llanelly, in introducing the 1946 Bill. It is certainly of historic if of melancholy interest to recall the buoyancy and self-assurance of those early days. I will quote.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer"—
he is not in his place, but the one with the song in his heart—
has expressed the Government's intention to hold the cost of living at about 31 per cent. over the September, 1939, level."[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1946; Vol. 418, c. 1742.]
That was the intention. Intention is a very strong word. It was not hope or desire but intention. When they went out of office, it was not 31 per cent.; it was 69 per cent. above September, 1939. I am not at all surprised that the right hon. Lady said in her speech today that she was becoming increasingly critical of the cost-of-living index. Unhappy statesmen! They would have been better cast as courtiers to Canute.
Having dealt with the first two statements of the preamble, I must now come to the main proposition which the House is asked to accept. [Interruption.] It is all one. There are three statements and


I have dealt with the first two. Hon. Members opposite do not like it; that is the trouble. In the main part of the Amendment we are asked to pledge our support
for further improvements as soon as the current review of all the financial and other problems involved has been completed.
What is wrong with that? Will the Opposition vote against this Amendment when it becomes a substantive Motion, as I am sure it will in a few moments? I shall be interested to see what they will do. It is perhaps only the
review of all the financial and other problems 
to which they object. Is that all there is between us—between the Motion of Censure of hon. Members opposite and the Amendment of hon. Members on this side of the House? Surely no one would want the Government to act in such an important matter without the fullest investigation and preparation.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will note that the Minister, and other Ministers before him, have already pledged themselves to act now. Why, therefore, wait for the report?

Mr. Macmillan: That is the only point—whether there should be a report or not. Many of the speeches have been very interesting. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) and the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), in their suggestions in this matter, made propositions of a very wide character which would certainly need full investigation before they could possibly be incorporated in an insurance scheme. The hon. Gentleman said that, instead of a flat-rate contribution, there should be a sliding-rate contribution according to the wage. That is a very good suggestion but a very wide one. So it was all through the debate. Hon. Members who said that we ought to go ahead without investigation put a number of proposals all of which require the deepest thought and contemplation.
It is interesting to see that our view is supported—that we should wait for the proposals of the Government Actuary, the Phillips Committee and all the rest—by a person of some importance, I should have thought—the assistant secretary of the Trades Union Congress. He was

asked in a broadcast which he gave the other day a question, "What do you think of the Chancellor's decision not to increase pensions under the 1954 Budget and whether that will be generally acceptable to the trade union movement?" Mr. George Woodcock, assistant general secretary of the T.U.C., made this reply in the broadcast:
I think it is generally acceptable in the sense that there are these inquiries going on and we of the T.U.C. are preparing evidence for the committee dealing with the implications of old age. Then there is the report and so on, so that at least it is reasonable to say. 'I will not deal with that at this stage'.
There we see the common sense of the trade union movement as opposed to the shadow boxing of the Socialist politicians.

Mr. Ellis Smith: You have done a bit of shadow boxing.

Mr. Macmillan: Hon. Members opposite must learn to take it: they moved the Motion of Censure.
Nevertheless, the Government's pledge is made here today. I repeat the promise that will go out from this House to the old-age pensioners. It is a pledge which is doubly valuable to them because it is given by a Government who have already in the first year of their office made a large and important improvement. The Opposition have chosen to place upon the Order Paper a Motion framed in the usual Parliamentary terms of a Motion of censure. Anyone who has been any time in the House must know "deeply regret," and so on; these are the terms of a Motion of censure. If carried, they must involve the fall of a Government. The same Members lecture us about how we ought to treat this sort of debate in a charming academic, non-party spirit, suitable to an afternoon lecture. It is hon. Members opposite who started it by moving the Motion of censure. All that they object to is that we are dangerous people who, when attacked, have the courage to defend ourselves.
One thing that surprises me is the timing of the Motion. If the party opposite were so anxious for immediate action, one would have thought that this Motion of censure would have appeared sooner, immediately after the Budget. There have been plenty of opportunities. Supply Days could have been given, or Government days could have been given, but


no doubt they have been otherwise employed. The public will regard this manœuvre as a shameless attempt to exploit the feelings of the old-age pensioners.
Of course, it will be very convenient at election time. It will be in that little red book of questions which is published for the Socialist hecklers to ask the Tory candidates. It will say that all the Tories on 21st July voted against a Motion to increase old-age pensions. I always take the precaution of starting an election by buying one of those little red books. Of course, it would contain nothing about the Amendment and the Government's pledge. But one trouble about this dodge is that before the Election the pensions will have been increased, and that is what is worrying the party opposite. We all know these tactics.
If we are to recall votes taken in the House, I cannot help still remembering one of the great Divisions in my first Parliament, the 1924 Parliament. It was when the Labour and Socialist Party voted against the whole scheme in 1925, in opposition to the Second Reading of the Widows, Orphans and Old Age Pensions Bill. "Ah," they said, "we will not vote for any contributory scheme. We will only vote for a non-contributory scheme." Supposing we had had a noncontributory scheme. If the contributory scheme, with its tripartite contributions, is throwing an appalling pressure upon the Treasury and the Exchequer, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, knows quite well to his cost, what would have happened had there been from the very start nothing but a non-contributory scheme? I was very glad to hear the changed opinion of the party opposite as revealed by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard), whom we were glad to know was well enough to speak today, and of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), who recognise the fact that an increased pension will involve some reflection in the rate of contribution. In the last minute that I have left—

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has twice within a few minutes complained of lack of time, and, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I should like your guidance on the matter of how much time remains for the subject we are now discussing. I understood that the business before the House was Supply, which is Government business. The House at 3.30 today approved a Motion suspending the Standing Order relating to time for Government business—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is mistaken. The business before the House is a Motion moved by the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill).

Mr. Macmillan: I just make this warning. We ought not to give an exaggerated idea of what it is possible to do. Every shilling of increase in pensions and benefits involves a formidable sum of money. The burdens on our economy—high taxation, an immense debt and the need for full-scale defences—are very great. I believe that they can be sustained throughout the years that lie before us, but I do not think they can be sustained except in one way. That is not by one party rivalling the other in its promises—promise is easy, performance is difficult. They can be carried out only by a common determination to expand the national production of wealth, to give every opportunity to enterprise and effort, to abandon the restrictive economy of Socialism and control and have an expanding economy with due regard to hopes and ambitions. The possibilities of science applied to production are almost limitless. We may be moving into altogether new realms of effort. We shall not do it by the petty and partisan tactics of the party opposite but by a common united effort by the whole country.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 268; Noes, 298.

Division No. 205]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Baird, J.
Benson, G.


Adams, Richard
Balfour, A.
Beswick, F.


Albu, A. H.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Bartley, P.
Bing, G. H. C


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Blackburn, F.


Awbery, S. S.
Bence, C. R.
Blenkinsop, A


Bacon, Miss Alice
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Boardman, H




Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Houghton, Douglas
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bowen, E. R.
Hoy, J. H.
Proctor, W. T.


Bowles, F. G.
Hubbard, T. F.
Pryde, D. J.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Brockway, A. F.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rankin, John


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reeves, J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rhodes, H.


Burke, W. A.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Richards, R.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Callaghan, L. J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Carmichael, J.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Ross, William


Champion, A. J.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Royle, C.


Chapman, W. D.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Clunie, J.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Short, E. W.


Coldrick, W.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Cove, W G.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Keenan, W.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Kenyon, C.
Skeffington, A. M.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
King, Dr. H. M.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Daines, P.
Lawson, G. M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Snow, J. W.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lewis, Arthur
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lindgren, G. S.
Steele, T.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Deer, G.
Legan, D. G.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Delargy, H. J.
MacColl, J. E.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Dodds, N. N.
McGhee, H. G.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Donnelly, D. L.
McGovern, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Driberg, T. E. N.
McInnes, J.
Swingler, S. T.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
McLeavy, F.
Sylvester, G. O.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Manuel, A. C.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Fernyhough, E.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A
Thornton, E.


Fienburgh, E.
Mason, Roy
Timmons, J.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mayhew, C. P.
Tomney, F.


Fellick, M.
Mellish, R. J.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Foot, M. M.
Messer, Sir F.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Forman, J. C.
Mikardo, Ian
Usborne, H. C.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Viant, S. P.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Monslow, W.
Wade, D. W.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Moody, A. S.
Wallace, H. W.


Gibson, C. W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Warbey, W. N.


Glanville, James
Morley, R.
Watkins, T. E.


Gooch, E. G.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Weitzman, D.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Greenwood, Anthony
Mort, D. L.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Moyle, A.
West, D. G.


Grey, C. F.
Mulley, F. W.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Grimond, J.
O'Brien, T.
Wigg, George


Hale, Leslie
Oldfield, W. H.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oliver, G. H.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Orbach, M.
Willey, F. T.


Hamilton, W. W.
Oswald, T.
Williams, David (Neath)


Hannan, W.
Padley, W. E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Hardy, E. A.
Paget, R. T.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y).


Hargreaves, A.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Harrison, J. (Nettingham, E.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hastings, S.
Panned, Charles
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hayman, F. H.
Pargiter, G. A.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Parker, J.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Parkin, B. T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Herbison, Miss M.
Paton, J.
Wyatt, W. L.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Peart, T. F.
Yates, V. F.


Hobson, C. R.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Holman, P.
Porter, G.



Holmes, Horace
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 




Mr. Bowden and Mr. Pearson







NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
McKibbin, A. J.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Alport, C. J. M.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Maclean, Fitzroy


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Gammans, L. D.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cremarty)


Arbuthnot, John
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Glover, D.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Godber, J. B.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald


Baldwin, A. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Banks, Col. C.
Gough, C. F. H.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Barber, Anthony
Gower, H. R.
Marples, A. E.


Barlow, Sir John
Graham, Sir Fergus
Marshall, Douglas (Bedmin)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maude, Angus


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maudling, R.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Harden, J. R. E.
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Mellor, Sir John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Molson, A. H. E.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Moore, Sir Thomas


Birch, Nigel
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Bishop, F. P.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Black, C. W.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Boothby, Sir R. J. G.
Hay, John
Neave, Airey


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Nicholls, Harmar


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Heath, Edward
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Braine, B. R.
Henderson, John (Catheart)
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nutting, Anthony


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Oakshott, H. D.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Holland Martin, C. J.
Odey, G. W.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hollis, M. C.
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Bullard, D. G.
Hope, Lord John
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Horob'n, I. M.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)


Campbell, Sir David
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Osborne, C.


Carr, Robert
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Page, R. G.


Cary, Sir Robert
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Partridge, E.


Channon, H.
Hudson. Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Churchill, Rt. Hon, Sir Winston
Hulbert, Wing Cdr N. J.
Perkins, Sir Robert


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hurd, A. R.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Pickthorn, K. W. M


Cole, Norman
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A


Colegate, W A.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Pitman, I. J.


Conant, Maj. Sir Rupert
Iremenger, T. L.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Powell, J. Enoch


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Jennings, Sir Roland
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Profumo, J. D.


Crouch, R. F.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Ramsden, J. E.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Kaberry, D.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Keeling, Sir Edward
Redmayne, M.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Kerby, Capt. H. B
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Davidson, Viscountess
Kerr, H. W.
Remnant, Hon. P.


De la Bére, Sir Rupert
Lambert, Hon. G.
Renton, D. L. M.


Deedes, W. F.
Lambton, Viscount
Ridsdale, J. E.


Dedds-Parker, A. D.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Robertson, Sir David


Donaldson, Cmdr, C. E. McA.
Leather, E. H. C.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S)


Donner, Sir P. W.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Robson-Brown, W.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Roper, Sir Harold


Drayson, G. B.
Lindsay, Martin
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Dugdale Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Russell, R. S.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Duthie, W S.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Savery, Prof. Sir Douglas


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Elliet, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Scott, R. Donald


Erroll, F. J
Longden, Gilbert
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Fell, A.
Low, A. R. W.
Shepherd, William


Finlay, Graeme
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)


Fisher, Nigel
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Fleetwood Hesketh, R. F
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Ford, Mrs. Patricia
McAdden, S. J.
Snadden, W. McN.


Fort, R.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon M. S
Soames, Capt. C.


Fester, John
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Spearman, A. C. M-







Speir, R. M.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Stevens, Geoffrey
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Wellwood, W.


Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Tilney, John
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Touche, Sir Gordon
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Steddart-Scott, Col. M.
Turner, H. F. L.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Storey, S.
Turton, R. H.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Vane, W. M. F.
Wills, G.


Studholme, H. G.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Summers, G. S.
Vosper, D. F.
Wood, Hon. R.


Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)



Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.
Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and


Teeling, W.
Wall, Major Patrick
Sir Cedric Drewe.


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)



Question put, and agreed to.

Proposed words there added.

Resolved:
That this House, while taking note of the action of Her Majesty's Government in 1952 in increasing pensions and National Insurance benefits and of its success in stabilising the cost of living since that date, pledges its support for further improvements as soon as the current review of all the financial and other problems involved has been completed.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (REPAIRS AND RENTS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Orders of the Day — Clause 14.—(LIMITATION OF LIABILITY OF TRUSTEES, ETC. FOR EXPENSES OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN CERTAIN CASES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 39, after "creditors" insert "or members."

10.15 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. L. Clyde): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is to provide additional scope for reimbursement to local authorities. As the Clause stands, it limits the liability of the liquidator of a company to funds, rents and other assets in his hands on behalf of the creditors of the company. The liquidator, however, could be holding funds not only on behalf of creditors but also on behalf of the members of the company. There seems to be no reason why the local authority should not be in a position to recover its expenses from such funds and the Amendment seeks to enable that to be achieved.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I think that the general purpose of this Amendment will be generally acceptable, but there is one point I should like the Government to clear up, if they will. I wonder whether it is possible that the liquidator might have moneys on behalf of one member of a company far in excess of that one member's share of the cost of the works, by reference, of course, to his share in the company, and if the liquidator may take excess payment from that member accordingly.
I do not think that the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State quite understood me. As I understand, the purpose of this Amendment, as the Lord Advocate has explained it, is to ensure that the liquidator may use not only funds which he holds on behalf of creditors to pay to the local authority the necessary moneys to recoup it for work which it has carried out upon buildings. The Amendment provides for the position when the liquidator holds moneys on behalf of members—which must surely mean any one member. I wonder whether, if the liquidator held moneys on behalf of any one member, he could call for payment in excess of the share that that one member should pay.

The Lord Advocate: If I may reply, by leave of the House, the answer is that any money which the liquidator is holding in excess of what is required to meet the creditors' claims in full is held, not on behalf of an individual member, but on behalf of the members as a whole. It is to meet that situation that the Amendment is put down. When the liquidator is holding moneys, not for creditors, he would be holding them on behalf of the members as a group; be would not hold moneys on behalf of individual members of a company.

Orders of the Day — Clause 25.—(EXCLUSION FROM RENT ACTS OF LETTINGS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES, DEVELOPMENT COR PORATIONS, HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS, ETC.)

Lords Amendment: In page 22, line 3, leave out from "before," to end of line 4, and insert:
the commencement of this Act.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The purpose of the Amendment is to remove an anomaly that was pointed out by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) during the Report stage of the Bill in this House. He then drew attention to the fact that as the Clause stood it exempted from the Rent Acts tenancies held from a housing association registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, if the tenancies were of houses provided by the association before 13th November, 1953; while Clause 27, which should be read in conjunction with Clause 25, exempted from the Rent Acts any houses erected by the Association after the commencement of this Measure. That would result in a hiatus, as the hon. Member pointed out.

Mr. Fraser: As the Government appreciate, the Opposition were not happy about the principle of the Clause in the first place. But now that principle is accepted by Parliament, this seems to be a very proper Amendment and I am grateful to the Government for making it.

Orders of the Day — Clause 28.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 1 OF ACT OF 1949.)

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 18, leave out the last foregoing section and insert:
section twenty-six of this Act.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is merely a drafting Amendment to correct a wrong reference resulting from the insertion of the new Clause 27 on Report. I do not think that there is anything controversial about it.

Orders of the Day — Clause 39.—(INTERPRETATION OF PART II.)

Lords Amendment: In page 32, line 16, leave out "Increase of Rent and Mortgage Increase" and insert, "Rent and Mortgage Interest."

Mr. J. Stuart: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This also is a drafting Amendment to correct an error in the meaning assigned to "Act of 1939," which should be: "Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1939."

Lords Amendment: In page 32, line 44, at end, insert:
and 'prescribe' shall be construed accordingly;

Mr. J. Stuart: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This also is a drafting Amendment and was agreed to in another place without a Division. The interpretation Clause as drafted read:
 'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
In paragraph 7 (3, c), of the First Schedule the phrase used in giving the Secretary of State power to make regulations laying down the method of ascertaining the method of floor space is:
in such manner as the Secretary of State shall prescribe.
It is necessary, therefore, to give some direction as to the construction of the word "prescribe."

Mr. James McInnes: This Amendment puzzles me. I assume that it is designed, or rather that it is necessary, to give a direction as to the construction of the word "prescribe." I should like to know how that is achieved by adding that
 'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State and prescribe' shall be construed accordingly.
I should have thought that neither gave direction nor construction. Perhaps it would be better if the phraseology of the Amendment had been expressed in this way:
 'prescribe' means the course to be followed by the Secretary of State by regulations …
In other words, why do not we, for example, in Clause 39, in the interpret


tation of Part II of the Act, say, in regard to a local authority:
local authority' in relation to dwellings means the council or the county council wherein the dwelling house is situated which local authority shall be construed accordingly.
Why not say that it shall be construed accordingly in all the interpretations on page 32? Perhaps the Lord Advocate would devote a little of his attention to this point to clarify it for the ordinary layman.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I am puzzled by this Amendment, which states:
 'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
It then goes on to say that
 'prescribe ' shall be construed accordingly.
I agree with my hon. Friend that it does not make sense to a layman, and that it would be interesting to hear the legal explanation of these words.

The Lord Advocate: By leave of the House, I will endeavour to clarify the matter. In the interpretation Clause as drafted, "prescribed", the past participle, meant prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. But in paragraph 7 (3, c) of the First Schedule the phrase used in giving the Secretary of State power to make regulations laying down the method of ascertaining the floor area is:
 … in such manner as the Secretary of State shall prescribe …
That is the present and not the past tense.

Mr. Hector McNeil: Future.

The Lord Advocate: It is the word "prescribe" and not "prescribed." It is necessary, therefore, to give a direction as to how to construe the word. The Amendment has been put down to achieve that purpose.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I submit that the explanation given by the Lord Advocate makes that which was obscure still more obscure. It seems to me that the words which it is sought to add are redundant and that line 44 was clear enough as it stood. The words sought to be added make it far from clear. As the provision stands it reads:
 'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

If the word "prescribe" means that, surely that word will be construed accordingly. It is quite unnecessary and redundant to add the words
and 'prescribe' shall be construed accordingly.
That makes nonsense of the provision. The Lord Advocate, calling in aid the other provision, tends to make the matter far more obscure. It is a simple provision as it reads now, and it will be made quite unintelligible by the addition of these words.

Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 15, after second "tenant" insert
(as defined in paragraph (g) of subsection (1) of section twelve of the Act of 1920).

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the next Amendment, to line 16. The two Amendments were on the Order Paper for consideration on Report, but were withdrawn by me after it had been painted out, I think by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), that there had been a misprint on the Order Paper and that the paragraph to which reference was intended to be made was not properly indicated. The Amendments seek to cure that defect.
The object is to make it clear that the term "statutory tenant" covers all the types of statutory tenant according to the decisions, including a fairly recent decision in the House of Lords, to give the benefits which arise from that recent decision, and to include within the definition the widow of a contractual tenant where the contractual tenancy had passed to the contractual tenant's heir. Without the Amendment such a widow would not have the right under the Clause which it is intended she should be given. I think that the House will agree that it is only right that she should have that benefit.

Mr. T. Fraser: We accept the Amendment most readily. We are happy to see that on this occasion the Government decided to define a tenant as a tenant and not as a standard rate of interest.

Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In line 16, leave out from "Acts" to end of line 19 and insert:
and not as being entitled to a tenancy.

Orders of the Day — First Schedule.—(PROOF OF PAST REPAIRS BY LANDLORD.)

Lords Amendment: In page 36, line 19, leave out from "work" to "has" in line 20 and insert:
(the nature of which shall be specified in general terms in the declaration).

10.30 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment to eliminate the possibility of ambiguity. We altered the wording in the first paragraph, but neglected to do so in the second paragraph. The Amendment corrects the mistake.

Lords Amendment: In page 37, line 38, after "area" insert "or rateable value."

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Before the Amendment was accepted in another place, the First Schedule provided that for the purpose of satisfying the expenditure test as a proof of past repairs in a case where two or more dwelling-houses were contained in the same building, floor area was to be taken as the basis for apportioning the amount of repairs expenditure applicable to each house. The Amendment makes the First Schedule say that the basis of apportionment between the various houses shall be floor area or rateable value.
The point was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) during Committee. He was of opinion that rateable value should be substituted for floor area. He pointed out what we all agree, that it would not involve the work of a skilled person, and that it was fixed and certain and easy of reference.
At that time the Government felt that we had to take account of those cases which undoubtedly exist where rateable value would produce an inequitable result. We have looked at the matter further, and in view of what the hon.

and learned Gentleman said and the fact that where repairs have been apportioned in the past between different owners the rateable value was a customary basis of apportionment; that rateable value can easily be ascertained; and that the use of floor area will involve the landlord in certain cases in employing skilled persons and, therefore, in a considerable amount of expense which it may not be reasonable to expect from certain of the owners, we thought it right to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Douglas Johnston: The suggestion that the Government have put forward the Amendment because of what I said in Committee is very flattering, but I have difficulty in understanding how the arguments which I put forward then, and which were turned down so contemptuously by the Joint Under-Secretary at that time, should now persuade him. I have heard it suggested—perhaps he will tell me whether it is so—that strong representations were made by certain societies and others, particularly in Glasgow, against the Government's drafting, and that those societies and others were substantially factors in Glasgow and the West of Scotland. I am given to understand that the reason why the Government want the Amendment is that, and not the arugments which I put forward earlier.
We now have the curious situation that the landlord will be given the best of two worlds. He will have either the floor area basis or the rateable value basis. I cannot say that I think that that is wholly advisable, particularly as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that in certain circumstances inequitable results might follow from the use of the rateable value basis. The reason why he rejected the rateable value basis when I suggested it was the inequitable results. I hope he appreciates that inequitable results may still follow, because it is entirely at the option of the landlord which method is used—the floor area or the rateable value.
There is a third point, which I am sure will appeal to the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), who has spoken strongly against the use of the rateable value. It is that in certain instances it may impose an additional liability on shopkeepers who are tenants of shops in a tenement. A further complication


is introduced by Clause 35. As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, the Bill, and that clause in particular, introduces an additional complication into our rating system. We have this curious situation, taking the case of a shop which is part of a tenement: a different basis will be used, because for the shop the gross rateable value will be adopted and for the dwelling houses within it the net rateable value will be used. What is proposed to be inserted by another place is "or rateable value," and rateable value is defined in Clause 35 as
the gross annual value thereof after the deduction of such part of the rent thereof as is specified in the following provisions of this section.
What is specified in the following subsections is the increase provided for by the earlier parts of the Bill.
I am sure that the House requires more cogent reasons for accepting this Amendment than any which have been advanced so far.

Mr. Woodburn: If an argument develops as to whether it shall be the floor area or the rateable value, who settles it? As far as I can see, the Clause does not say who settles it. Is it to be in the opinion of the tenant or in the opinion of the landlord or in the opinion of the Secretary of State? If the tenant says that he will benefit by one method while the landlord says that he will benefit by the other method, who is to settle the argument?

Mr. Hector Hughes: This seems to me to extend both the rights and the powers of the landlord, and either the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate should explain whether it does so or whether it does not. It should also be explained to us who is to decide which shall be the test. A new test is to be added to the Clause. The present test is that of the floor area—

"the like proportion to so much of the cost of that work as was borne by the landlord of that dwelling-house as the floor area of that dwelling-house bears to the total floor areas of all the dwelling-houses contained as aforesaid of which that landlord is the landlord …
That is a complicated phrase, and the insertion of these new words not only makes it still more complicated but also adds a new test. The test is now to be the floor area or the rateable value, and there is not a word in the Clause

to indicate who is to decide which test is to be applied. Is it to be the landlord? If it is, then the Amendment gives him added powers and added rights with no corresponding addition to the powers and rights of the tenant.
It was obvious as we waded through the Bill in Committee that it was a landlords' Bill, giving extra powers to landlords and enhancing their rights, and giving very little to the tenant. Here is an instance where the Bill gives added rights and powers to the landlord but no corresponding rights or powers to the tenant. There is not a word as to who is to exercise these powers or how they are to be exercised. This complicated Clause should be more clearly explained by the Secretary of State, because he will have control of the authorities that will be administering it. I ask the right hon. Gentleman for the explanation. It is not a legal matter for the Lord Advocate, and I hope that the Secretary of State will give the House the benefit of his wisdom.

Mr. McInnes: I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) raised the issues that are involved in the Amendment. Not only does the net rateable value apply to houses and the gross rateable value to shops or offices, but I want to visualise the situation that inevitably would arise in the case of a tenemental property.
Conceivably, the landlord in the case of houses would be disposed to accept the principle of the floor area, and in the same tenemental property he would apply the gross rateable value when it was a matter of shops or offices. He would adopt that procedure because it would be far more advantageous for him. On the other hand, it is possible that he might reverse the procedure and apply the net rateable value in the case of the houses and the floor area in respect of shops or offices.
Is it possible, under the Amendment, for a landlord to take part of the building at the floor area for determination purposes and the remaining part at either net or gross rateable value, or can he apply the three elements that are involved in respect of the one building? There will have to be all sorts of mathematical calculations in order to arrive at the justification for the increased rent that is payable to the landlord.
There is no landlord in Glasgow who is capable of making all these mathematical calculations, because they have confessed that they are not capable of keeping even books or records. The Government ought not to embarrass them in this fashion by asking them to become engaged in a proposition of this kind. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will clarify the position, if not for me, at least for the landlords.

Mr. William Ross: I hope that an effort will be made to clarify and not "Clydefy" the position. So far, the arguments of the Joint Under-Secretary have been unconvincing. When this matter was raised at an earlier stage it was resisted by the Under-Secretary because it might lead to unfairness as between one tenant and another.
Floor space was to be taken as the criterion in matters of expense, but now the Government come forward with this Amendment from another place for insertion in the Clause. The Under-Secretary tells us that the justification for it is purely and simply convenience and consideration for what it might cost the landlord. We have to balance the two arguments.
I am a man who is easily convinced. I was convinced by the speech of the Joint Under-Secretary that he had at heart a desire for justice as between one tenant and another. Has he lost sight of that altogether? When it comes to a contest of the convenience of the landlord and the expense to the landlord, he wipes out the equality as between one tenant and another; he wipes that out, and goes for the landlord every time.

10.45 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) for indicating that he has been in such close touch with the factors; for it is obvious from what he says that he knows very well what is going on. I would ask the House to remember what this is all about. It is simply the matter of apportionment in reference to the expenditure test and surely it follows, if we are taking rateable value, that that must be the present rateable value, because the rent cannot be raised until the expenditure test has been satisfied. So there cannot be a case of there being some difficulty in knowing what rateable value to take, and the hon. Gentleman's

reference to additional burdens on the shops cannot be a tenable argument because there is no rent increase in regard to the shops.
The right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) asked a question which has been repeated by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) and my answer is that the House will recall that the landlord has to serve the notice of increase; and that includes the declaration of expenditure. The landlord is allowed by the Schedule to do one thing or the other; but he cannot do both. He can use the rateable value, or he can use the floor area, but he cannot use both.

Mr. Woodburn: Supposing the tenant, knowing that either of these things is possible and, knowing that thinks that he has had a wrong deal by what the landlord has done, can the tenant then challenge the matter because it says, "either/or"?

Commander Galbraith: It is in the opinion of the landlord because it is he who, as I have said, has to serve the notice. I think that really deals with all the points which have been raised.

Mr. Johnston: Would the Joint Under-Secretary not agree that shops are brought in by subsection 3 (a), where it states that
where a building contains premises other than a dwelling-house … those premises shall be treated as if they were a dwelling-house.
Indeed, I should have thought that one of the purposes of subsection 3 was, in certain circumstances, to bring shops and offices into this sphere. Is that not so?

Commander Galbraith: They only come in in relation to the apportionment of expenditure.

Mr. T. Fraser: I hope that we shall get a further explanation about this Amendment from the Government; otherwise, we could not possibly accept it. The Secretary of State is given power in this paragraph of the First Schedule to make regulations laying down the method of ascertaining the floor area for the purpose of allocating the cost of works among a number of dwellinghouses. In Committee we thought that rateable value would have been a good yardstick to employ. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman may object to my


hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) accusing him of treating him with contempt during the Committee stage, but we had very acrimonious discussions in the Committee. Not infrequently, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman lost his temper and this was one of those occasions.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that if this Amendment is agreed to the landlord will determine whether he will use floor area or rateable value. The Joint Under-Secretary says that the landlord is the person who serves the notice, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite incapable of pointing to any part of the Schedule which says that the landlord will have the right to choose between those alternatives. If, after these Amendments, he had added the words, "as decided by the landlord" even that would be quite inadequate.
If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman or the Lord Advocate will look at the Bill he will see that paragraph (b) at the bottom of page 37 says:
where a building contains premises other than a dwelling-house which are occupied otherwise than by a tenant thereof, the owner of the premises shall be treated as if he were the landlord thereof;
Who is that? Is it not the owner of the shop on the ground floor of the tenement building? That person is to be treated as the landlord. Is he to decide whether it shall be floor area or rateable value?
Obviously, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman thought it was the landlord of the house upstairs, but his own Schedule says that the shopkeeper is also a landlord and the two landlords may not agree. Since the Committee stage the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has discovered that if floor space is taken some landlords may be involved in considerable expense in having measurements made and he thinks he is giving the landlords the alternative. But, if he reads this Schedule he will find that there may well be two or more landlords.
In Glasgow, there are many tenement buildings where there are half a dozen shops under the same roof with six different owners. Incidentally, there will be some houses within the tenement which are owner-occupied. We leave them out of account, but we must take into account those shopkeepers who own houses on the street level. The First

Schedule, which we are seeking to amend, says that each of those persons shall be treated as a landlord. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says the landlord will decide whether they will take floor area or rateable value. Almost always—always I should think in Glasgow—the shopkeeper will be better off if floor area is taken.

Mr. J. Stuart: Why did the hon. Member and his hon. Friends suggest rateable value if they are trying to meet the problem and not to be stubborn?

Mr. T. Fraser: The Secretary of State asks me to tell the House why we suggested rateable value in the first place. I could do so, but I should think the House would be worried if I did. If the Secretary of State happened to be absent from the Committee when long explanations were given why we wanted rateable value, he might have given the Scottish Opposition the courtesy of reading why we wanted rateable value in the first case. The Secretary of State did not listen in Committee and he is not listening now. The Secretary of State cannot listen at all.

Mr. J. Stuart: The hon. Gentleman has no right to say that. I have listened to every word he has said. I have the Committee report in front of me.

Mr. T. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman is smarter than I thought he was. He keeps talking all the time. Perhaps he is able to talk and listen at the same time.
If I have not made myself clear, I will have another shot. I hope the Secretary of State will follow me. It may be my fault he has not followed me so far. I would have thought it would be better to have, either floor area, or rateable value, but not both. What he is proposing in this Amendment, at least he thinks he is proposing it, is that the landlord will have the choice of rateable value or floor area. I was saying that, the shop keeper on street level, on the ground floor, will always be favourable to floor area being taken instead of rateable value.
The Joint Under-Secretary gave reasons why the landlord of the dwelling-house upstairs would be favourable to rateable value being taken, because that would save them some expense. I think


that this Amendment, in its present form, with the explanations that have been given, is not acceptable and I hope it will not be acceptable to the House, because it is not clear who will decide, if there is a difference of opinion, whether rateable value or floor area should be to ken.
The landlord of the dwelling-house, will always favour rateable value and the shop keeper downstairs will always favour floor area, but, in this Schedule, the landlord upstairs and the shop keeper on the ground floor are both landlords. If these landlords disagree, there is no provision in this Schedule for having the disagreement resolved. That is why we do not like the Amendment in its present form. I would rather have had "floor area," or "rateable value," by itself. We might even have had the choice, if there were some other Amendment made to the Bill, to provide for a system, or method, of resolving a difference of opinion where it arose.
It must be clear to the Government, that there is a difficulty here. I hope this matter will be further explained. It really is impossible to have this Amendment in its present form.

Commander Galbraith: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman has forgotten some of the arguments that were put forward in the course of our discussions in Committee. Surely he must remember that, where there are different owners, each will have a separate pool for the purposes of the expenditure test. The owner of the shop he was talking about would be a separate landlord. He will have his own part of the expenditure pool, different from that of the landlord of the house. That is where the hon. Gentleman has gone completely wrong. Where there are two owners, each has his separate pool for apportionment. That is the explanation of the whole situation described by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser).

Further Lords Amendments agreed to: In line:39, after "areas" insert "or rateable values."

In line 41, leave out "paragraph" and insert "sub-paragraph."

Lords Amendment: In page 38, line 6, at end, insert:

8. The landlord, or any person authorised by him in writing, shall be entitled at reasonable times of the day, on giving twenty-four hours notice in writing to the occupier of his intention, to enter any dwelling-house for the purpose of ascertaining the floor area thereof for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) of the last foregoing paragraph.

11.0 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment entitles the landlord, or any person he may authorise, subject to certain conditions, to enter any dwelling-house for the express purpose of ascertaining its floor area. I would point out that this is a once-and-for-all purpose. Once the expenditure test has been satisfied there is no need for anyone to take the floor area measurement again.

Mr. Johnston: This is eminently sensible, but I am in a little difficulty in reconciling the Amendment with the strong objections which have been put forward from time to time by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they were in opposition, to any right of entry at all. Indeed, recently we had an Act governing rights of entry which provides that in certain cases there may be no right of entry unless there is a warrant granted by a magistrate or a justice of the peace; yet here a landlord is to be able to require entry by the mere service of a notice. This seems a little inconsistent and contradictory of the principle for which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his hon. Friends fought so strenuously for so long.

Mr. Ross: One or two important points arise. The Amendment refers to
The landlord, or any person authorised by him in writing …
It is a fact that many tenants have never seen their landlord. They have no clue as to who he is or what his signature looks like. We have heard a lot about Mr. Brady. We have a lot of people of the same type round about Glasgow. I understand that someone in Italy was the landlord of a considerable amount of property in Scotland. We will have this business of someone coming along with a letter which is signed by a landlord who may be living anywhere in any part of the world and he
… shall be entitled at reasonable times of the day, on giving twenty-four hours notice in writing to the occupier of his intention, to enter any dwelling-house …


This is going rather far after all that has been said about the rights of the individual. We heard a great deal about the rights of property only yesterday.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that this, of course, is a once-and-for-all right which is being given to the landlord or someone authorised by him. Can he tell me where it says that it will happen only once?

Commander Galbraith: Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that once the expenditure test has been satisfied it will not be necessary to take measurements again.

Mr. Ross: This is the kind of trouble we get with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He loses control of his temper. If he had taken more trouble, or listened more, during the Committee stage he would have got this Bill into better condition before now. I am glad that the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) has arrived. If he had been here in time for the last Amendment he would have realised that we have just accepted another Murray MacGregor Amendment.
I am not at all satisfied that what the right hon. Gentleman says is right. I am still not satisfied. The more he smiles the less satisfied I am. I feel the same the more support he gets from the Lord Advocate. Confidence in the interpretation of Scottish law in this House has been shaken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's arrival here, and his continued appearance here. The sooner we get the other Solicitor-General, whom we have never had the privilege of seeing in this House, who never had the opportunity of getting a seat in this House—

Mr. Thomas Steele: He is a landlord.

Mr. Hector Hughes: In spite of the facetious remarks about a well-known character who is not an hon. Member of this House, this is not a laughing matter. This is a serious and objectionable Amendment, whatever may have been said about the other Amendments which have passed all too unobtrusively. This is a serious infringement of tenants' rights. The landlord is given the right of entry into the tenant's house. It is a breach of the tenant's sovereignty, and the tenant's house is no longer his castle.

It is true that the Clause gives that right to the landlord to be exercised on 24 hours' notice in writing having been given; but there is not a word in the Clause about the form of the notice, or what the notice in writing is to be. Nor is there indication of how it is to be served on the tenant. Is it to be pinned on the door, pushed under the door, or how is it to be served?

Mr. J. Stuart: if the hon. and learned Gentleman feels so strongly about this, why did he consent to it in the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, which gives similar power to enter to carry out repairs?

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman seeks to evade the point which I am putting by bringing in some other Act. We are not discussing that Act. I do not propose to deviate from my course, but to analyse this objectionable Clause and show how dangerous it is.
I have pointed out that there is no protection for the tenant regarding the form of notice. It is to be in writing, but is it to be, as has been suggested, any old letter? How is to be served? Is it to be pinned on the door, or pushed under the door? What evidence will be exacted that a tenant has actually received the notice?
Another serious aspect of the matter is that there is no indication that the tenant's consent will be given, or asked for. The notice will be served on the tenant, and the landlord may force his way in, or send some authorised person. The tenant's consent is not asked for. This is an infringement of the tenant's sovereignty. Like other provisions in the Bill, it is in favour of the landlord and against the tenant.
What is to happen if the landlord serves the notice and the tenant does not consent? There is no provision for that.

Mr. Stuart: The tenant can refuse and the landlord then has to go to the sheriff. It is quite simple.

Mr. Hughes: What is to happen if, during the essential 24 hours—

Mr. McInnes: Can my hon. and learned Friend say how many hours' notice the landlord must give to get out of the house after he is in?

Mr. Hughes: I will deviate to deal with that matter. That suggests another very important problem. If the landlord,


or the person authorised by him, enters the house, how long may he stay there? May he stay there for a week or a month? There is no protection for the tenant with regard to that.

Mr. Ross: I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend need worry about that. The slums in Glasgow are such that no ore would want to stay in them any longer than necessary.

Mr. Hughes: No matter how insanitary the slums may be, the tenants who have to suffer and languish there have their rights; and it is not right that the landlord, or some person authorised by him, should be able to go into the house for a period of uncertain duration. The period is not specified. The landlord, or the person authorised by him, may take it into his head that he wishes to spend his summer holidays there.
There are several very objectionable aspects about this. What is to happen if during the essential 24 hours the tenant is sick and unable to move? Is the landlord to be entitled to force his way in to the sick tenant? What is to happen if the tenant's wife is sick? What is to happen if the tenant is away in hospital? What is to happen if the tenant is a member of this House, and serving in Parliament when the landlord serves the notice? These problems are not dealt with at all.
There is nothing in the Amendment to provide that the person authorised by the landlord shall be a decent person. He may be any scallywag—any Tom, Dick or Harry—who is authorised by the landlord to force his way into the tenant's house and stay there for an unspecified period.

Mr. Ross: He may be a Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Hughes: And how is such a person to be authorised? The more we analyse this Amendment the more objectionable and nasty it seems. Suppose the tenant is a young married man who has to do night work, or has to be away from home, and the landlord, or the person authorised by him, chooses to force his way in when the wife is alone? Is the young wife to be exposed to that kind of thing? I have only to mention that to show that this Amendment is open not only to grave social objections, but to moral objections also.

I hope that the Secretary of State will take back this Amendment and reconsider it.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. T. Fraser: While the Government are seeking the answers to the many pertinent questions by my hon. and learned Friend [HON. MEMBERS: "Impertinent"]—they are all very pertinent questions and not at all impertinent—may I say that we are glad to have with us in the House tonight the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward). No doubt she came in precisely for this Amendment, because it was she who had the privilege of piloting through the House the Right of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act, mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend. The hon. Lady was most concerned to protect the interests of private persons. She was not willing that an electricity or gas board should merely give 24 hours' notice, or two days' notice, or a week's notice to a tenant before a board could get into a house. The hon. lady got a Bill through Parliament which says:
No right of entry … shall be exercisable in respect of any premises except—
(a) with consent given by or on behalf of the occupier of the premises, or
(b) under the authority of a warrant granted under the next following section:"
A warrant issued by the court is necessary before a gas or an electricity board can get entry but under this Amendment the landlord merely requires to give 24 hours' notice, and he has the right of entry.

Mr. J. Stuart: indicated dissent.

Mr. Fraser: We are told that is not so, but we have not had much explanation. The Secretary of State told my hon. Friend that if the tenant refuses entry then the landlord should go to the courts. I hope that someone will give us the reference.

Mr. Stuart: The hon. Member will find it in Section 16 (2) of the Rent Restrictions Act of 1920.

Mr. Fraser: It was most considerate of the Government, in 1920, to insert a provision to meet what we are doing on 21st July, 1954. The Secretary of State, in one of his earlier and pungent interjections, said that he supported the provi


sion in the Act of 1950 giving the landlord the right of entry to carry out repairs. There is a very great difference between giving the right of entry to carry out repairs and the right of entry to determine how much the tenant shall contribute weekly to the cost of repairs from which he does not believe he has enjoyed any benefit at all.
The Secretary of State has had a little time to think of replies to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen. North (Mr. Hector Hughes), and the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth has had ample opportunity to collect her thoughts and tell us what she proposes to say about this proposal to give the right of entry at 24 hours' notice not to a gas or an electricity board but to some of the most unscrupulous people in Scotland.

Miss Irene Ward: I have always longed, as an Englishwoman, to be asked to take part in a Scottish debate. This is a really thrilling moment for me. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I have listened with very great interest to the development of the argument. First of all, I thought that possibly there was a point to be put on this. I do not need to collect my thoughts. They are in my head. I do not always let them out, but they are there.
As soon as my right hon. Friend announced that if the tenant did not acquiesce in the right of the landlord to enter the house, and that he had to apply to the sheriff for permission, I found that, in fact, the part of this Bill which is being discussed is in line with the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act, which I had the privilege and honour, with the assistance of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, to pilot through the House. In other words, my Bill protected the general public from compulsory rights of entry without a warrant.
If I understand the position here correctly, the tenants are protected, if they desire to prevent a landlord from entering, from compulsory right of entry without going to a sheriff court. Hon. Members opposite will appreciate that I do not understand Scottish legal procedure. In England, we do not talk about going to a sheriff court, but tonight I am trying to be Scottish.
It seems to me that all is well and that the principles for which I fought are not

infringed. I therefore no longer wish to intervene between my Scottish hon. Friends and my Scottish opponents opposite, but I thank hon. Gentlemen opposite for the opportunity which they have given me to say a few words on this matter.

Orders of the Day — Second Schedule.—(MODIFICATIONS OF PART II OF ACT IN APPLICATION TO CERTAIN CLASSES OF DWELLING-HOUSE.)

Lords Amendment: In line 30, after "Act" insert:
and any certificate granted under paragraph 2 of this Schedule.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment is linked with the two following Amendments. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) moved an Amendment on report which would have required the local authority to give a certificate of disrepair on refusing a certificate of repair under the special procedure in the Second Schedule There were drafting objections to his Amendment, but I undertook to consider the matter again and ascertain whether at a later stage an Amendment on the lines he suggested could be introduced.
We have done so. We have realised that there was substance in the hon. Gentleman's argument, and this Amendment and the next two Amendments seek to give effect to his proposal. The result will be that a certificate of disrepair is to be given on a refusal of a certificate of repair under the special procedure.

Mr. T. Fraser: I am grateful to the Government for having the Amendment moved in another place. It makes the change in the Bill for which we asked in the first place, and we thank the Government very much for it.

Further Lords Amendments agreed to: In line 31, at end insert:
2. Where the local authority have refused to grant, on the application of the landlord, a certificate under paragraph 1 of this Schedule they shall forthwith certify accordingly in the prescribed form and shall serve a copy of the certificate on the landlord and on the tenant of the dwelling-house; and the certificate shall come into force as from the date of such service on the landlord and shall have effect


for the purposes of Part II of this Act as if it were a certificate granted by the local authority under subsection (1) of section eighteen of this Act.
In page 39, line 4, leave out from first to "to end of line 7 and insert:
the granting of a certificate under paragraph 2 of this Schedule as it applies in relation to the granting of a certificate under subsection (1) of that section and, if the sheriff revokes a certificate granted under the said paragraph 2, the local authority shall forthwith grant a certificate under paragraph I of this Schedule."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PENSIONS REGULATIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Draft Local Government Superannuation (Benefits) Regulations, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.—[Mr. Marples.]

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Opposition have had an opportunity of considering the draft Regulations which are promulgated in this Statutory Instrument. They are, as those of us who are interested know, based on the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1953, in which a number of hon. Members who are present at the moment were interested and in the Committee stage proceedings of which they took part.
Those who recollect our discussion will know all too well that the Regulations are not all that some of us would have wished them to be. Unfortunately, many thousands of manual workers whom we thought should have been included, as well as other workers, are outside the injuries allowance which is provided for in the Regulations. We can do nothing about them now because these Regulations are based on the Act in the shape in which it was passed, but we are sorry that the Act was not wider in scope so that these people might have been included.
These Regulations have been rather a long time coming, and I hope that that means—perhaps we may have a Government assurance on the point—that all those interested, the trade unions and other organisations who are affected by the Statutory Instrument, have been consulted and are in general, if not complete, agreement with the Regulations.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: As one who served on the Standing Committee during the Committee stage of this Act, and who has been a local government officer—and perhaps I may now declare, my interest—I want to say a few words about Part II, dealing with benefits, and paragraph 5 on page 5. The crucial point to which I want to draw attention is that
a contributory employee of an employing authority shall be entitled … to receive an annual pension 
if he has attained the age of 60 years and has completed 40 years' service. I want to emphasise that—40 years' service. That is the number of years a young lad, entering local government service, must serve before he can expect a pension at the end of his career.
I suggest that that is a mistake. We are all aware of the increasing strain of modern life, and nowhere is that strain more severe than in the Civil Service and local government service. We had an unhappy inquest yesterday which followed failures in the higher ranks of the Civil Service—and not only the higher ranks, for one somewhat inexperienced young man came in for criticism because he had prepared a report which, had he been more experienced, he would have taken steps to check more carefully before he submitted it to his superior.
I say with emphasis that we are making a mistake in approving Regulations which demand 40 years' service. In the Civil Service a man can draw a pension at a certain age—60, I think—if he has 30 years' service. A teacher can draw his pension at 60 if he has 30 years' qualifying service. In the police force the period is even less. In the Armed Forces it is certainly less. I am not complaining that these periods of qualifying service are less but submitting that we are making a mistake in the Regulations in laying down 40 years. I blame the trade unions and the National Association of Local Government Officers for agreeing to terms of this kind without strenuous objection.
Around 50 years of age a man very often passes through a crisis in his life—a health crisis, a neurosis, or something of that kind. Provision should be made for him to draw a pension after 30 years' service. He need not draw it until he is 60, he need not draw a full pension


at 60; he would draw an amount proportionate to his qualifying service.
Probably all local authorities within a limited period have to face a difficult situation when a local government officer breaks down in health at any time between the ages of 45 and 55. The officer will have given extraordinarily good service and the local authority is appreciative of it, but the authority knows that he will never again be able to render the good service which he has given in the past. But the local authority feels that it must keep him on, and it does so. I give all credit to local authorities for that.
The Minister may say, "But the man could draw a breakdown pension if he has more than 10 years' qualifying service"; but perhaps the man has not completely broken down in health. In all probability his breakdown is due to excess of zeal in the past. I faced a breakdown in health myself in my twenties. My health has improved since I became a Member of Parliament. We all know that a local government officer who has given good service has gained experience in human dealings, and so on, and an officer who moves out into another sphere of service would undoubtedly give further good service to the community.
After I had mentioned this same thing in the Second Reading debate when the Bill was before the House last year, a Member on the other side spoke to me about it. He told me that in a bank with which he was connected his directors had found it desirable to offer terms of early retirement to certain employees and were surprised at how many of them took advantage of the offer. I am not surprised, and I am sure that anyone who has been in local government service or the Civil Service and has felt the strain of that service would agree that it is a good thing to have the opportunity round about the age of 50 to change one's occupation.
I know that we can do nothing about it tonight—the Regulations are here; but I suggest that when we review this position again we should take into account this very human problem. I am sure that we should then give more consideration to it than we have done during our proceedings in connection with the Act

and the Regulations. There is one further problem. We know nowadays that service can go on beyond the age of 65. There then arises the problem of blocking promotion for younger men. If men could opt to retire from the service after they had 30 years' qualifying service, it would open avenues of promotion for younger men.

11.34 p.m.

Miss Irene Ward: I should like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to give me just one assurance. The Regulations are very complicated. I find them extremely difficult to understand, and I have no doubt that many people who are covered by them will also say that they are extremely complicated. I should like to ask my hon. Friend how he proposes to ensure through the employing authorities that those who will benefit by Regulation 15 and the Second Schedule, which operate together, will be aware of these provisions. How are they going to discover what are their rights and what are their options which they can exercise?
It is most important when we are trying to make progress in this sphere that those who are going to benefit should have a very full and fair opportunity to become acquainted with all the provisions made for them. I seem to have heard that my hon. Friend intends to send out an explanatory memorandum to local authorities and, in that connection, I should like sufficient emphasis to be made in that memorandum to ensure that local authorities will, in fact, see that everyone knows what are their rights and privileges.
I would conclude by saying that I am very glad to have this opportunity for raising this matter in the House, because if anybody does get left out and is not in the new provisions put before them then, if I retain my seat at the next General Election, I shall at least be able to get up and ask for explanations. I wish every success to the Regulations when they come into operation.

11.37 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): Before answering the several questions which have been put from both sides of the House, I should like to seek your


guidance, Mr. Speaker. I take it that we are discussing the four sets of Regulations together.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We are in your hands, Mr. Speaker, but it had occurred to my hon. Friends that it would certainly not lengthen the proceedings if the Instrument relating to Scotland was moved immediately after our present discussion. It may well be that certain points peculiar to Scotland may be raised briefly and then equally briefly answered by the Joint Under-Secretary for Scotland, or whoever else would reply.

Mr. Marples: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I take it, then, that we are discussing the three English Measures now and that the Scottish one will follow.

Mr. Thomas Steele: The hon. Gentleman said "the three Measures." Does that apply to the Motion on superannuation?

Mr. Marples: No, that superannuation Measure is on another page; it is not on the Order Paper for today. The second matter is the Scottish local government superannuation Regulations; I think he is referring to another superannuation Measure.
We are asking the House to approve this Motion for three sets of Regulations and I thank the right hon. Gentleman opposite for the moderate way in which he addressed himself to the House. These Regulations were laid on 1st July, and arise from the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1953, which became law in July of last year, and which laid down that the benefits would be embodied in Regulations. We have tonight to see if we approve the Regulations which have been made. There are three of them; the first is what I would call the "Benefits" Regulation; the second deals with justices' clerks and their assistants, and the third with probation officers and their clerks.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: This is a matter on which the justices' clerks take a fairly strong line. May I say that I hope that either the learned Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General will be present to say a word on this subject?

Mr. Marples: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I would say

that he was not present at the beginning of our discussion.

Mr. Bing: We have all had circulars on the subject from them.

Mr. Marples: We have circulars from many different bodies, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman had been here earlier he might have been able to assist the House in the way in which we expect assistance from him. I am making three points on this question. The first is in answer to the right hon. Member for Colne Valley, to whom the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch did not have the advantage of listening. The right hon. Member asked if consultation had taken place. He also said the Regulations had been a long time coming before the House. The reason is that the consultations were very comprehensive and rather lengthy with the various representative bodies concerned. Directly concerned we have the local authority associations who sat on the working party, London County Council, the National Association of Local Government Officers and, regarding the justices' clerks and assistants, the National Association of Probation Officers and the Justices' Clerks Society.
Although they raised points of substance in the early stages when they disagreed, they have come to general agreement and accepted this compromise solution. We could not have 15 or 20 interested bodies all having their own way; there must be a certain amount of give and take. Broadly speaking, this has been accepted by these various bodies. Although they expressed their individual points of view, they gave way when other points of view were put forward.
Those associations are directly concerned, but there are other associations not so directly concerned whose interests are nevertheless important, including the T.U.C., with which the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) disagreed. They were consulted and, broadly speaking, they accepted. There was the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing. I am sure I take the House with me when I say that with this multiplicity of bodies interested it is essential that whatever is arrived at as an agreed decision must be accomplished. Broadly they have accepted this agreement and the working


party, which considered the 1953 Act, considered this matter. This is the end product of a number of people's minds.
It is not obligatory on an employee of a local authority, and if he wishes to keep his previous rates he can elect to do so. A married person who retired after 30th September, 1950, or the widow of an employee who retired or died in service after that date, can elect for the new benefits, or to retain the old. It is a case of heads they win and tails they do not lose.
The Regulations apply to the great majority of local government pensionable employees. Those not covered are employees of local Act authorities, for example London County Council and Manchester, who have their own special Acts. Other local authorities have local Acts modifying the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937. Those modifications substitute benefits similar to those now to be conferred by these Regulations.
The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne has had extensive experience of the working of Regulations and probably knows more about them than anyone else in the House. They have affected him intimately and personally. He has made his protest, as an individual, as he has every right to do. He has made it very cogently and lucidly now, as he did when the Bill was before the House. I am bound to say that various representative bodies, such as the trade unions, having agreed to these recommendations, it is very difficult to throw over a representative body like the Trades Union Congress because the hon Member makes a perfectly good point against agreement; it is swamped by the interests of the majority. While I am sorry to say that to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great affection, especially as he has been reasonable in this matter, because he has suffered, not under this Act, but under pensions arrangements generally, I am bound to say that, having reached agreement with this multiplicity of bodies, it would be difficult for the Government to throw them over.

Mr. Hayman: I would only ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that I quite appreciate that point. The point I was trying to make is, whenever these conditions are reviewed, the very human difficulties which I have in mind should be taken into account.

Mr. Marples: I will certainly take note of them.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I feel that we ought to put this right for the sake of the record. The hon. Gentleman is rather blaming the trades unions for the fact that certain things are not in the Act. We really have to blame the Government, because some of us tried upstairs to get these things into the Act, but the Government would not agree.

Mr. Marples: I certainly would not shield behind the T.U.C. I think efforts of hon. Gentlemen upstairs were complementary to the efforts of the T.U.C., but did not replace them.
The T.U.C. have agreed with this, and I am not sheltering behind the T.U.C. in any way. I am merely saying they were a representative body, with whom this was discussed, and it is very difficult if it has been discussed and agreed with them, to throw over that agreement, because one or two people might disagree. The Government will take responsibility for it.
My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward), said that it was difficult to follow the Regulations, and we sympathise with her. She said, with reference to Regulation 15 of the Second Schedule, and I agree with her, that the people who are entitled to benefit under these Regulations, are perfectly entitled to have a proper explanation and put as simply as possible. There will be a memorandum explaining the Regulations, and local authorities will be advised to inform employees of their rights and the time limits. If any particular person has difficulty, after the local authority has explained it, there are the usual organisations, such as the Citizens' Advice Bureau, or, even a Member of Parliament.
These complicated Regulations, which are difficult to follow, should be thoroughly and lucidly explained to the people entitled to benefit from them. With that, I hope the House will agree to the three English Motions to approve the Regulations now laid in accordance with the Act.

11.48 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: I want to draw attention to a case of a highly respected man who was a magistrates' clerk who died very suddenly and left a widow in very difficult circumstances


indeed. I have gone into this case with the treasurer of Dudley, and he has helped all he could.
As I understand the situation, this lady was driven back on the generosity of the magistrates' committee. I hope that in cases of this kind, where a man has given long service to the community and died at a fairly early age—or at least only in his forties—and obtained little benefit from the Regulations, the hon. Gentleman will do all he can to urge local authorities to be as generous as they can.
It is clear that, when a superannuation scheme is brought into being, what a person gets must have some relation to what he pays, or, to put it the other way round, what they pay must have a relation to what they get. This unfortunate lady suffers, because of the sudden death of her husband, which is a tragedy in itself. She was used to a comparatively high standard of life and, without a word of warning, she is left living on what small payments she gets. She has been waiting patiently for the promulgation of these Regulations, hoping, I think, for a great deal more than she is likely to get. I make no complaint about that, because there must be a starting point.
I make no complaint about the generosity or the kindness of the treasurer of the Dudley Corporation. He has done all that he can. He, too, has been waiting for the Regulations. I understand that, even when the Regulations are fully understood by the lady and her advisers, she will not get a lot out of it. It may well be that in the circumstances the Minister and his advisers can make it possible for the magistrates' committee and the corporation to do something over and above the provisions contained in the Regulations.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): The hon. Member has referred to the case of a justices' clerk. Although the responsibility for these Regulations is that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, the Home Secretary has the primary responsibility in this instance. I have asked whether we have any knowledge of the matter, and I am advised that at the moment we have not. We will have the matter looked into, and I will write to the hon. Member.

11.52 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Steele: I am in a difficulty, because I do not know which Minister can answer the question that I wish to put. I understand that the Local Government Regulations cover England and Scotland, but I cannot find on the Paper any reference to Regulations for probation officers and justices' clerks in Scotland. I ask the question because I have had a long correspondence with representatives of the Scottish probation officers.

Mr. Bing: On a point of order. Surely, we are discussing only the first set of Regulations in the name of the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Mr. Speaker: It was agreed that we should discuss at the same time the three sets of Regulations in the name of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The Scottish Regulations are not being discussed at the moment.

Mr. Steele: Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State has got the point. The probation officers of Scotland have always been paid less than their colleagues in England. I wonder whether this is another example where they are left out in the cold.

11.54 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): It might be convenient if I were to answer that direct question immediately. The reason why there are no Regulations about probation officers in Scotland is that they come under the ordinary local government superannuation scheme.

11.55 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): I beg to move,
That the Draft Local Government Superannuation (Benefits) (Scotland) Regulations, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th July, be approved.
These Regulations correspond to the Draft English Regulations which the House has just approved. The Scottish Regulations are substantially the same in effect as those for England and Wales. As was the case with the English Regulations, they have been prepared in consultation with the local authority associations, the National Association of


Local Government Officers, and other interested parties. All these bodies are generally agreeable to the Regulations.

Miss Margaret Herbison: As has been said by other speakers, these Regulations are complicated. I have tried to understand them and to find out what they will do for those affected by them. It is important for those concerned that the explanatory memorandum, which we have been told is to go to the English local authorities, should also go to the Scottish local authorities.

Commander Galbraith: I can assure the hon. Lady that that will be done.

Miss Herbison: The English Minister, when giving an explanation, said that there were other bodies which would be able to help those concerned. I am sure that that is so. I am sure, too, that N.A.L.G.O., as we call it, will be ready at all times to help their people to understand the Regulations. The officers of that association will have given a great deal of thought and time to the matter, even before these Regulations were brought before the House. They will be able to give a great deal of assistance to members of the association. Members of other unions will be able to get help from those bodies.
Like another hon. Member, I am sorry that tonight we have not before us Regulations covering a much greater body of workers. I know we cannot plead for their inclusion in these Regulations, because they are not covered by the Act. I can only say that I hope that in the near future pressure will become so strong that manual workers will eventually be covered.
I must say how surprised I was that the Regulations had to be withdrawn shortly after they had appeared in this House; and that they had to be withdrawn because of omissions. Considering the galaxy of officers we have at the Scottish Office this mistake ought not to have taken place. The Regulations ought to have been correct when they first came before the House. The Scottish Office now has two more officers than it had under the late Administration. Therefore

it was wrong that there should be muddle and mistakes, and that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments should find that pages 35 and 36 had been omitted, and that certain minor Amendments also had to be made. These Regulations are of great importance to thousands, and I would ask that greater care should be taken by Ministers in regard to draft Regulations.

Commander Galbraith: If I may reply, with the permission of the House. The hon. Lady has raised the point about omissions from these Regulations. I am quite sure that when she occupied the position of Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary she went carefully through every page to make sure that nothing had been left out in transmission to the printers. That is what happened here. Two pages were left out, and I will admit that, unlike the hon. Lady, I did not go through every page to see that all the pages were in place.

Miss Herbison: I do not think that is an explanation at all. Had it been a matter of a minor printing error I should not have drawn attention to it. But it was not a minor error. It was a very important omission, the omission of Tables 3 and 4, which are very important. They give modifications in the additional contributory payments by a great number of workers. Table 3 also gives modifications of additional contributions under Regulation 12. That was not a slight mistake—

Mr. Speaker: I gather that the missing pages appear in the Regulations before us.

Miss Herbison: They are here.

Mr. Speaker: These are the Regulations we are discussing.

Draft Justices' Clerks and Assistants (Superannuation) Regulations, 1954, copy presented on 2nd July, approved.—[Mr. Marples.]

Draft Probation Officers and Clerks (Superannuation) Regulations, 1954, copy presented on 9th July, approved.—[Mr. Marples.]

Orders of the Day — HOSPITAL FACILITIES, BLETCHLEY

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

12.1 a.m.

Major Sir Frank Markham: After the major debates we have had during these last few days, it may appear somewhat of an anti-climax to invite the House to consider a matter of almost purely local importance to North Buckinghamshire and the immediate neighbourhood, namely, the provision of adequate hospital facilities for the Bletchley area. But one of the great virtues of this House is that we can switch from subjects of world-wide importance to subjects affecting a small number of individuals. In such a way we get the fresh air of democratic criticism blowing through every Government Department in turn. It is, therefore, with no apology or hesitation that I raise this question of the lack of adequate hospital facilities in the area which I have the honour to represent in this House.
The Bletchley area has no general hospital provision at all, nearer than about 17 or 18 miles. It is true that there are large hospitals at Luton, Bedford, Oxford, Aylesbury and Northampton, but to get to any one of those centres from Bletchley means often a very difficult journey, and in many cases it may mean as much as eight hours travelling and waiting time for a 10-minute or a 15-minute interview by the doctor or the specialist concerned.
This area of nearly 1,000 square miles, embracing over 60,000 people, is an area which is developing very fast, since Bletchley is an enlarged town under the recent regulations and is expanding at the rate of 1,000 persons per year by immigrants from other areas in addition to the normal expansion. This expansion has been helped in every conceivable way by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, as I think everyone in the Bletchley area would agree, but on the hospital side there has not been a parallel approach. The urban district council have done everything they can to secure hospital provision for Bletchley. They have earmarked an area of nearly an

acre for a new general hospital—and excellent site—and apparently they are faced with a situation which I find difficult to understand. They have been informed by the Oxford Regional Hospital by letter dated March 10th this year that:
I cannot give you any very helpful indication as to the likelihood of the Board being able at any early date to proceed with the construction of hospital premises at Bletchley following upon the decision to ask for a site to be reserved in the Development Plan.
The fact is that our capital allocation over the next two years at last is already overcommitted and we are quite unlikely in that time to include provision for Bletchley in the programme. Unfortunately, in making allocations to the regions it would seem that the Ministry do not take account of the needs of the new towns in the developing areas, but simply leave it to the Boards to do what they can with the small amount of capital available.
Frankly, that letter gives one the impression that the board would be happy and willing to do their part by Bletchley if the Ministry in turn would do their part by the board. I should be very grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary could enlighten me on this situation. Is it the Ministry holding up this development, or is it the regional hospital board? Whoever it is, what steps can be taken to ease this situation?
Bletchley itself in the pre-war days was better off in hospital provision than it is now. In those days there was the Woburn Clinic, sometimes known as the Duchess of Bedford's Hospital, an admirable small hospital. It has been closed down for several years. The buildings are still empty, while at the same time Bletchley and the area has inadequate hospital facilities.
As another alternative, the Ministry might care to look at the R.A.F. Hospital at Bletchley, which contains about 30 beds. At the moment, it has only three or four R.A.F. patients, and I understand that the R.A.F. are thinking of giving it up next year. Would it not be feasible, pending the proper development of hospital facilities, to take over the R.A.F. Hospital as it stands in the near future? I put these suggestions forward purely as temporary palliatives for a difficult situation.
The main thing I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary for is every help and support towards getting an adequate modern general hospital built at Bletchley. The urban district council have


done their part, and done it well. In view of the growing population of the area, the ever-growing importance of the A.5 route which goes right through the area, with the possibility of road accidents developing with higher speeds, the growing industrial development of Bletchley itself, I think this matter of hospital accommodation is urgent and becomes more urgent with every day that passes.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some ground for hope that the hospital provision in Bletchley will be provided within a reasonably measurable time.

12.18 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): The hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) has raised a question which I know gives rise to some considerable concern in the Bletchley area of his constituency. It is true that Bletchley was selected as one of the towns under the Town Development Act, 1952, for certain industrial and residential expansion. The estimate is that in the course of 10 years Bletchley will increase in population by some 10,000. So far it has been able to induce industry to go there, and in housing it has done a great deal to meet the additional call for residences.
It is true that within its own area it has no hospital. It has a chest clinic, and the nearest hospital is a small one of 21 beds in Buckingham. There are within range—within longer range but certainly serving the patient-need of the area—large hospital groups and units at Aylesbury, where there are 700 beds, Northampton where there are 1,100 beds, and Bedford where there are 700 beds, covering all the various specialties.
With regard to expansion, I would like to make clear the differentiation between a new town where there is in prospect the transfer of 100,000 or 200,000 people, and an area like Bletchley and the surrounding district which has a population of 60,000 or 70,000 and a probable increase of 10,000. The two cannot be dealt with on the same basis, and there is a very clear difference in Ministry responsibility.
In the case of a new town, such as the Welwyn-Hatfield area, hundreds of thousands of people are being moved. Obviously, the scale of that makes it necessary for direct allocation to be made in any consideration of entirely new hospital services where none exist, and that direct allocation over and above the general board allocation will have to be considered by the Ministry.
To expand an area by 10,000 is very common indeed. Dozens of areas in the country have expanded their populations by similar figures within the last few years. In the last few years my constituency has absorbed 25,000 people. It would be quite impracticable for the Ministry to deal with all such areas by direct ministerial grant because it could only do so by first withdrawing that aggregation of money from the total sum which it had at its disposal for the regional hospital boards, and it would deprive the regional board with one hand of what it would otherwise allocate with the other. We should rapidly find that we were deciding on most projects from Whitehall and removing from regional boards the authority which they were given under the Act to decide the priorities in their own areas.
Bletchley's development is a normal programme which comes within the purview and priorities of the Oxford Regional Hospital Board. It is for that board to decide from the capital allocated to it the priorities within its own region. I have repeatedly said in the House that my right hon. Friend does not think it right to interfere, except in very extreme circumstances, with the priorities fixed by the people on the spot and responsible for their own areas. We know very well that if a priority is changed we have no additional money which we can provide for it. It means that some other priority which was given first place by the board has to be held up while the new one uses the capital which the board allocated elsewhere.
With regard to Bletchley, the board would certainly like more hospital provision there, but it has given first priority for new hospital capital expenditure to Swindon. It is for the board to decide in what order of priority further development in Bletchley should be made.
My hon. and gallant Friend raised a question concerning two units, with which I will now deal. First, there is the ques


tion of the R.A.F. station at Bletchley. The board is well aware of the need for additional beds in Bletchley, and it tried to make interim arrangements with the R.A.F. camp some time ago, but those negotiations fell through. The camp is still in use, although it is mooted that the R.A.F. may be moving out fairly soon. It is primarily a residential camp, with a hospital or sick bay, and in its present form that would not be wholly suitable to provide the requirements which would be demanded of a unit serving general patients for the Bletchley area. But should the R.A.F. vacate the camp, the regional hospital board would certainly investigate the possibility of using the premises. It must, however, take into account the capital cost—and the capital cost of adaptations is generally very high—and also the maintenance cost of what might be a comparatively small unit.
The Duchess of Bedford Clinic, known as the Woburn Clinic, at one time served Bletchley but it now comes within not the Oxford Region but the North-West Metropolitan Hospital Board. The North-West Metropolitan Board considered whether it was a practical proposition to re-open and to run this unit, but in its negotiations it was considering the unit for chronic sick, and even for that purpose, which does not involve so high a capital expenditure on clinical necessities, it would have cost £8,300 for building and engineering works, repairs and equipment, to bring it up to a standard at which it could be used. Maintenance costs even as a unit for the chronic sick would be £13,000 a year. In view of the heavy cost of maintaining so small a unit, the board did not pursue those negotiations as it did not consider it a practical, economic proposition.
The Oxford Regional Hospital Board, as stated in its letter, has earmarked its capital resources for 1954–55 and 1955–56. It is fully aware of the need to provide additional accommodation at Bletchley. I cannot wholly accept the criticism in the letter which my hon. Friend read to the House, because the Oxford Regional Board knows, as do all regional boards, that the sum of money allocated for capital expenditure, and the amount which the Government feel that it is possible to allocate in any

one year to the health service and from that to the hospital service, is divided among the regional boards.
In that allocation we take into consideration all such aspects as change or migration of population. Population is one of the factors considered when the allocation is made. We also take into account the existing hospitals and the need for maintenance of buildings and for new buildings.
All those factors are very fully considered in the allocation of money to the regional boards, but once the total allocation has been made it is for the regional board to make its own priorities within its area. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree with that policy. To do otherwise would be to take away from those who live and work in the area, and who have given great service in the area, responsibility for decisions on matters within their own knowledge. It would be directing everything from an office in Whitehall, which I am sure is neither the desire of the board nor the intention of my hon. Friend.
It is true that if a board is unable to make a local scheme its top priority, it always blames the Ministry for not finding enough money. If, on the other hand, the board finds the money for a particular priority, it always takes the credit for its prescience in doing it. Nevertheless, I assure my hon. Friend that we are conscious of the difficulties in Bletchley. There is no question but that it is a matter and a priority that must be decided within the capital allocation of the Oxford Board. It does not come into the category of a new town, nor will it increase by such a vast amount that it would justify direct and special treatment from the Ministry, as is anticipated in the case of the real new towns as opposed to extended existing towns.
I am sorry not to be able to give my hon. and gallant Friend greater hope in this matter beyond assuring him that we know that the board has it on its list of priorities. We know that the board will do all in its power to consider the possible alternative of the use of accommodation in the R.A.F. camp when the Royal Air Force moves out of it, and we know that the board has it well to the fore that so far as is possible it should


do its best to provide nearer accommodation and some additional accommodation for the Bletchley area.

Sir F. Markham: I thank my hon. Friend for her sympathetic and extremely frank reply, and I shall discuss this with my friends in Bletchley. I must, in the most ungentlemanly way, threaten her

with raising another Adjournment debate on the subject before the Session ends if I do not get what I am after.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes past Twelve o'clock a.m.